Monday, December 7, 2020

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò Letters to Trump

 


Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò was appointed the Apostolic Nuncio (Vatican ambassador) to the United States from 19 October 2011 to 12 April 2016. He gained prominence in the US by writing two open letters to President Donald J. Trump, one in June 7, 2020; and the other in October 25, 2020; both of which have received wide publicity and reprinted by several journals in the US. I heard about him through the media and on the Internet when he wrote his first letter back in June, but wasn’t interested to look into it further at the time. But following the recent political upheavals in the US, and especially following the controversial Presidential election, his name has been mentioned more often, especially since he wrote a third open letter in November 4, 2020, following the US Presidential election, and addressed to “American Catholics and Americans of Good Will;” so finally I decided to take a look at his writings to find out more about him and what he has to say.


The first thing I noticed after reading his letters is that he is a very eloquent, articulate, and well spoken individual. He has a flair for writing good English, which suggests a high degree of intelligence, so he cannot be easily dismissed as a “conspiracy theorist”. He has also held other high positions in the Catholic Church and at the Vatican, in most of which he has generated controversy by exposing fraud and corruption. He has been very critical of Pope Francis for example, accusing him of pandering to the globalists, and called on him to resign. In this post I would like to focus on his two letters to President Trump, and the last one addressed to the people of the United States. In his first letter he speaks in more general terms, and begins as follows:


“In recent months we have been witnessing the formation of two opposing sides that I would call Biblical: the children of light and the children of darkness. The children of light constitute the most conspicuous part of humanity, while the children of darkness represent an absolute minority. And yet the former are the object of a sort of discrimination which places them in a situation of moral inferiority with respect to their adversaries, who often hold strategic positions in government, in politics, in the economy and in the media. In an apparently inexplicable way, the good are held hostage by the wicked, and by those who help them either out of self-interest or fearfulness.”


Two paragraphs down he states the following (emphasis added):


“And it appears that the children of darkness—whom we may easily identify with the deep state which you wisely oppose and which is fiercely waging war against you in these days—have decided to show their cards, so to speak, by now revealing their plans. They seem to be so certain of already having everything under control that they have laid aside that circumspection that until now had at least partially concealed their true intentions.”


He also implies that the Covid 19 emergency has been used as an excuse for an exercise in “social engineering” whereby the conspiratorial elite “have decided the fate of humanity, arrogating to themselves the right to act against the will of citizens and their representatives in the governments of nations”. In the rest of his letter he speaks in conspiratorial terms, using typical expressions such as the “deep state,” the “invisible enemy,” “globalism,” “aligned thought,” the “New World Order,” “universal brotherhood” etc.; and speaking of those who want to “dominate the world by driving God out of the courts, out of schools, out of families, and perhaps even out of churches;” and that “hidden behind these acts of vandalism and violence there are those who hope to profit from the dissolution of the social order so as to build a world without freedom: Solve et Coagula, as the Masonic adage teaches”.


In his second letter he is more specific, speaks in more ominous terms, and talks of a global conspiracy to create a world dictatorship in which nation-states are dissolved, international borders are removed, individual civil liberties are curtailed, and the whole world is governed by a global socialist utopia. He begins his opening paragraph as follows:


“Allow me to address you at this hour in which the fate of the whole world is being threatened by a global conspiracy against God and humanity.”


Then in the next paragraph he continues as follows:


“As I said when I wrote my letter to you in June, this historical moment sees the forces of Evil aligned in a battle without quarter against the forces of Good; forces of Evil that appear powerful and organized as they oppose the children of Light, who are disoriented and disorganized, abandoned by their temporal and spiritual leaders.

 

“Daily we sense the attacks multiplying of those who want to destroy the very basis of society: the natural family, respect for human life, love of country, freedom of education and business. We see heads of nations and religious leaders pandering to this suicide of Western culture and its Christian soul, while the fundamental rights of citizens and believers are denied in the name of a health emergency that is revealing itself more and more fully as instrumental to the establishment of an inhuman faceless tyranny.

 

“A global plan called the Great Reset is underway. Its architect is a global élite that wants to subdue all of humanity, imposing coercive measures with which to drastically limit individual freedoms and those of entire populations. In several nations this plan has already been approved and financed; in others it is still in an early stage. Behind the world leaders who are the accomplices and executors of this infernal project, there are unscrupulous characters who finance the World Economic Forum and Event 201, promoting their agenda.

 

“The purpose of the Great Reset is the imposition of a health dictatorship aiming at the imposition of liberticidal measures, hidden behind tempting promises of ensuring a universal income and cancelling individual debt. The price of these concessions from the International Monetary Fund will be the renunciation of private property and adherence to a program of vaccination against Covid-19 and Covid-21. … Beyond the enormous economic interests that motivate the promoters of the Great Reset, the imposition of the vaccination will be accompanied by the requirement of a health passport and a digital ID, with the consequent contact tracing of the population of the entire world. Those who do not accept these measures will be confined in detention camps or placed under house arrest, and all their assets will be confiscated.

 

“Mr. President, I imagine that you are already aware that in some countries the Great Reset will be activated between the end of this year and the first trimester of 2021. For this purpose, further lockdowns are planned, which will be officially justified by a supposed second and third wave of the pandemic. You are well aware of the means that have been deployed to sow panic and legitimize draconian limitations on individual liberties, artfully provoking a world-wide economic crisis. In the intentions of its architects, this crisis will serve to make the recourse of nations to the Great Reset irreversible, thereby giving the final blow to a world whose existence and very memory they want to completely cancel.”


And then a couple of paragraphs down he adds:


“Until a few months ago, it was easy to smear as ‘conspiracy theorists’ those who denounced these terrible plans, which we now see being carried out down to the smallest detail. No one, up until last February, would ever have thought that, in all of our cities, citizens would be arrested simply for wanting to walk down the street, to breathe, to want to keep their business open, to want to go to church on Sunday. Yet now it is happening all over the world, even in picture-postcard Italy that many Americans consider to be a small enchanted country, with its ancient monuments, its churches, its charming cities, its characteristic villages. And while the politicians are barricaded inside their palaces promulgating decrees like Persian satraps, businesses are failing, shops are closing, and people are prevented from living, traveling, working, and praying.”

 

These two letters were written before the US Presidential election. Following the election he wrote his third letter, addressed to American Catholics and all Americans of good will, in which he continues the same theme as before. He begins his letter as follows:

 

“As devout Christians and faithful citizens of the United States of America, you have intense and heartfelt concern for the fate of your beloved country while the final results of the Presidential election are still uncertain.

 

“News of electoral fraud is multiplying, despite the shameful attempts of the mainstream media to censor the truth of the facts in order to give their candidate the advantage. There are states in which the number of votes is greater than the number of voters; others in which the mail-in vote seems to be exclusively in favor of Joe Biden; others in which the counting of ballots has been suspended for no reason or where sensational tampering has been discovered: always and only against President Donald J. Trump, always and only in favor of Biden.

 

“In truth, for months now we have been witnessing a continuous trickle of staggered news, of manipulated or censored information, of crimes that have been silenced or covered up in the face of striking evidence and irrefutable testimony. We have seen the deep state organize itself, well in advance, to carry out the most colossal electoral fraud in history, in order to ensure the defeat of the man who has strenuously opposed the establishment of the New World Order that is wanted by the children of darkness. In this battle, you have not failed, as is your sacred duty, to make your own contribution by taking the side of the Good. Others, enslaved by vices or blinded by infernal hatred against Our Lord, have taken the side of Evil.”

 

The solution that he proposes to the American people is to pray earnestly to God for a resolution of the problem, and for the defeat of the globalist conspiracy. Does he know something that the rest of us don’t know? I am not taking sides, but he seems to be too intelligent (and too much to lose) to be your typical “conspiracy theorist”. I think that what he says deserves to be taken seriously.


Sunday, October 25, 2020

Is Limited Atonement Biblical?



My attention was drawn to the above video in which Sam Shamoun and Matt Slick debate the subject of whether the doctrine of Limited Atonement (one of the central tenets of Calvinism) is biblical or not? Matt slick takes the side of Limited Atonement, whereas Sam Shamoun takes the opposite side, of an unlimited or universal Atonement. It is a long video, about two hours long, and my intention is not to discuss its contents in detail; that would take too long. I will just briefly point out some salient highlights.


I take the side of Sam Shamoun in this debate, of a universal or unlimited Atonement; and I also think that Sam Shamoun for the most part does a good job of presenting his case biblically, and putting Matt Slick on the defensive. But he makes two theological and hermeneutical errors which weakens his position quite a bit. If he fixes those, he will be able defeat Matt Slick hands down. The first mistake he makes is that he assumes that the Atonement of Jesus Christ takes effect in the life of the believer on the basis of faith alone; whereas the biblical doctrine is faith coupled with repentance. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of repentance, not just faith alone. It is faith coupled with repentance (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:14-15; 2:17; 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3; 15:7; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 17:30; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Rev. 3:19). The greater significance of that becomes apparent as we continue.


The second mistake that he has made is that he has seriously erred in his interpretation of Colossians chapter 1. The significant portions of that chapter that he quotes from (given in context) and misunderstands is as follows (emphasis added):


Colossians 1:


17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;


The bit that he gets wrong is in verse 20, where it says, “by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven,” by which he understands to mean that Jesus’ Atonement covered the sins of all, in heaven and on earth, including Satan and his crew. But that is not what the scripture is saying. “Heaven” doesn’t include Satan and his crew! Satan and his crew aren’t in “heaven,” they are in hell! Jesus’ Atonement did not extend to the devils in hell. He also says that if the devils “believed” they would be saved. That is not correct either. The devils do believe!


James 2:


19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.


But it doesn’t lead to their salvation. What they cannot do is to repent, which explains also why they cannot also be redeemed. Jesus’ Atonement did not extend to the devils in hell. Jesus came to atone for the sins of fallen humanity, on both sides of the veil, both those who had died before he was born, as well as those who came after. For “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Cor. 15:22) The devils didn’t “die in Adam,” that they should be redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Those are the two mistakes that Sam Shamoun makes. If he fixes those, he can defeat Matt Slick (and other Calvinists) hands down.


Matt Slick, on the other hand, makes the common Calvinistic error of assuming that the Atonement of Jesus Christ redeems mankind from their sins unconditionally, which is entirely unbiblical and false. Hence he concludes that if Jesus atoned for the sins of all men, then all men without exception should be (unconditionally) redeemed, which is not biblical. Nothing is taught more clearly in the Bible than that the Atonement of Jesus Christ saves mankind only on condition of faith and repentance, which is entirely man’s choice, and there is no “predestination,” as I have discussed in several previous posts in my blog.


Wednesday, October 7, 2020

What is Wrong With this Biblical Exegesis?



What is wrong with this biblical exegesis? At 28:22 minutes into the video he says the following:


“There was never a female prophet with an ongoing prophetic ministry like Elijah and Elisha. No book in the Old Testament was written by a woman, nor was any portion of an Old Testament book written by a woman.”


How many books were written by Elijah, Elisha, or Samuel? I am not aware of any. Books were written about them, or their ministry; but the Bible doesn’t say that they themselves wrote any books. So how is that any different from prophetesses mentioned in the Bible, about whom things were written? How does that make the prophetesses any less special? How is that any different from Deborah, about whom things were written? He then continues:


“Now there were some women throughout the Old Testament that on occasion spoke for God.”


How many “occasions” did Samuel speak for God, and how is that different from Deborah? I don’t recall that the number of “occasions” were significantly different. How does that make Deborah’s ministry any less special than that of Samuel? I am struggling to see a difference. He continues:


“Miriam is called a prophetess, or one who speaks for God; but hers was a kind of a musical event, wasn’t it, back in Exodus chapter 15.”


How many times did Aaron speak for God? His wasn’t even “musical!” Yet the Bible puts both of them on a par with Moses in their prophetic ministry:


Micah 6:


4 For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of the house of servants; and I sent before thee Moses, Aaron, and Miriam.


He then continues:


“Deborah was a judge, and judges for, and in the absence of a man, the Lord used Deborah to bring about his will on one occasion; …”


That is more than just bad exegesis; it is dishonest and hypocritical. First of all, there were no “absence of men;” there were thousands of them around; but none of them evidently were as good as Deborah. Secondly, Deborah’s ministry was not an “occasional” one; it was very much an ongoing ministry, to the end of her life no doubt. Then he continues:


“… but when it came to going to war with the enemies, she was not about to lead the troops, and so she chose a man, Barak, to lead the troops.”


Another dishonest exegesis. How many “troops” did Samuel “lead to battle”? None that I know of. When God wanted wars to be fought in the days of Samuel, he did it in the same way that Deborah did, by appointing others to go and do it. The story of Saul is well known. In fact, Deborah did something that Samuel did’t! She did actually lead an army to war, which Samuel didn’t. When Deborah appointed Barak to go to war, Barak felt so fearful and inadequate to the task that he told Deborah he wouldn't go unless she went with him! And she did!


Judges 4:


4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.

6 And she sent and called Barak the son of Abinoam out of Kedeshnaphtali, and said unto him, Hath not the Lord God of Israel commanded, saying, Go and draw toward mount Tabor, and take with thee ten thousand men of the children of Naphtali and of the children of Zebulun?

7 And I will draw unto thee to the river Kishon Sisera, the captain of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his multitude; and I will deliver him into thine hand.

8 And Barak said unto her, If thou wilt go with me, then I will go: but if thou wilt not go with me, then I will not go.

9 And she said, I will surely go with thee: notwithstanding the journey that thou takest shall not be for thine honour; for the Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman. And Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh.


So John MacArthur has got all of that badly wrong, on just about every account. He then continues:


“Another woman is mentioned as one who spoke for God in 2 Kings 22 by the name of Huldah.”


So what about her? Did she have an “ongoing prophetic ministry,” or didn’t she? If kings, priests, and ministers knew enough about her to seek her out, to inquire of the Lord through her, I describe that as an “ongoing prophetic ministry”. He then continues:


“And then in the New Testament you have Anna in the temple when Jesus was taken there, to be dedicated in the temple, and she spoke a word from the Lord. But she was not a lifelong prophet.”


Nobody is “born” a prophet. They become prophets at some point in their lives; and after that, they remain so to the end of their lives—unless they lose the gift and privilege by some kind of transgression. Every true prophet is a “lifelong prophet”. The Bible describes Anna as a prophetess, period:


Luke 2:


36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;


Once a prophet, always a prophet! You don’t become a prophet one minute, and then lose the privilege next. If she was a prophetess, then she remained one for the rest of her life. It was a lifelong privilege. He then continues:


“No woman ever had an ongoing prophetic role.”


Says John MacArthur, not the Bible! If there were prophets and prophetesses, then theirs were an “ongoing prophetic role”. Nobody becomes a prophet one minute, and loses it next. Some prophets were more vocal and public in their assignments, like Samuel and Deborah; while others were less so, which included both men and women. In the Old Testament, there were many prophets who did not have such a public role as others (e.g. 1 Samuel 10:5; 1 Kings 18:4, 13), and of whose names we are not aware, because they did not have such a public role to play as the others did. But that didn’t make them any less prophets. That equally applies to men as well as to women. He continues:


“But occasionally God used women to speak for him.”


Does that include Deborah and Huldah, one of whom was a lifelong prophet-judge, and the other a lifelong prophetess, with an “ongoing ministry”? Both unquestionably had an “ongoing ministry,” no doubts about it.


Monday, September 21, 2020

What is Wrong With This Analysis of Calvinism?



He is right to oppose Calvinism; but he is going about it the wrong way. He is expelling Calvinism out of one door, while letting it back in through another door. Consider the following remarks, commencing at 4:23 minutes into the video (emphasis added):


“In fact the Bible declares many people righteous: Abel, Job, Noah, lot, Joseph, Cornelius, Zechariah, Elizabeth, Simeon, the list could go on. So was Paul wrong to say that no one was righteous, when clearly the Bible declares several people righteous, including Abraham, whom he mentions himself in the very next chapter? Of course we don’t believe there is any contradiction in Paul’s teaching; he only meant that no one is righteous by means of the law. All have sinned, even Abraham, Enoch, Job, and all the people that are listed as righteous. They are righteous by faith, not through the works of the law. … Those who trust in Christ are graciously imputed with his righteousness, they are not earning their own.”


That is not what the scripture says. It says that they were righteous because they were acting as such. They acted righteously before God, and that is why they were considered righteous and approved. This is what the scripture says about Abraham:


Genesis 22:


16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.


Genesis 26:


5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.


James 2:


21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?


Abraham was found righteous because he acted as such. Now this does not mean that Abraham never committed any sins, or did anything wrong in his life. But if he did, he repented of them, and kept the commandments of God as far as he knew it, and that is why he was found righteous, and approved of God. That is what the scripture says. He was found righteous because that is how he behaved. “Imputation” had nothing to do with it, and is nowhere mentioned or implied. The same goes for the rest of them. This is how Noah was found righteous:


Genesis 6:


8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.


2 Peter 2:


5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;


Noah was righteous, and the rest of the world were ungodly, and that is how he was approved, and the rest condemned. No “imputation,” or anything of that kind is mentioned or implied. The same goes for Job:


Job 1:


1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

• • •

8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?


Job was approved by God for his righteousness because that is what he was. No “imputation” is mentioned or implied anywhere.


Acts 10:


1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,

2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.

4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

• • •

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation [and religion] he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.


Cornelius was approved of God, and commended for his righteousness long before he had “believed” in Jesus, hence could have had anything “imputed” to him. He believed in God according to his own pagan tradition, and acted righteously according to that tradition. He was approved by God for his righteousness because that is how he acted. He was a righteous man like the others mentioned, and that is how he was approved—even though he adhered to a pagan religion, as Peter later testifies.


Luke 2:


25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.


Luke 1:


5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.


How can these be construed to mean anything other than what they actually say? Now repenting and keeping God’s commandments is not the same as “earning your own salvation”. It is not the same as “climbing a rope to get to heaven”. It simply means doing what is good and right in the sight of God, and avoiding evil—and thus gaining his approval. That is how Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the ancient Patriarchs, prophets, and saints gained God’s approval. They chose good, and abstained from evil. And if we do sin, we have an “advocate with the Father” who will forgive us our sins on condition of repentance. That is the one word that Evangelicals, Calvinists, and Reformed theologians dont like to hear, and avoid mentioning as much as they possibly can! It is anathema to their theology, and central to biblical doctrine.


You cannot defeat Calvinism by driving it out of the front door, and let it in by the back door. You can’t defeat it half-and-half. You can only defeat it all the way, not partway.


An interesting question that arises from this discussion is, What happens when we find a genuine contradiction in the biblical text, such as these:


Romans 4:


2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.


James 2:


20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?


These two statements are manifestly contradictory; so which is right, and how do we determine that? The Calvinist answer is to ignore the rest of the Bible, and go by what Calvinism says. The biblical way is to “search the scriptures” (John 5:39; Acts 17:11). And when we do, and discover that 99% of the Bible agrees with James, and 1% agrees with Paul, we go by the 99%, and harmonize the 1% to agree with the 99%, not the other way.