A Political Pope

I haven't got time to comment on this but the article linked to below is by George Neumayr, the author of The Political Pope. TPP is on my future reading list. You can read an excerpt HERE

Excerpts from Neuamyr's article on the pope's new Jesuit Head:

But Sosa’s ambitions, like Pope Francis’s, go well beyond meddling in economies. He is also pushing a moral revolution in the Church, evident in his astonishing claim that, since none of the Apostles tape-recorded Jesus Christ, his words on adultery can be elastically re-interpreted.

 “You need to start by reflecting on what exactly Jesus said,” Sosa told an Italian interviewer in February. “At that time, no one had a tape recorder to capture the words. What we know is that the words of Jesus have to be contextualized, they’re expressed in a certain language, in a precise environment, and they’re addressed to someone specific.”

In other words, Sosa is confident that he understands Jesus’s meaning better than the Gospel writers. Like Francis, Sosa can’t resist the mumbo-jumbo of Modernist biblical scholarship, which always manages to dovetail conveniently with liberal views.

According to Arturo Sosa Abascal:

The Church has developed over the centuries, it is not a piece of reinforced concrete. It was born, it has learned, it has changed. This is why the ecumenical councils are held, to try to bring developments of doctrine into focus. Doctrine is a word that I don’t like very much, it brings with it the image of the hardness of stone. Instead the human reality is much more nuanced, it is never black or white, it is in continual development...keep reading

What makes Neumayr's book and articles interesting is that he is an informed Roman Catholic who sees Bergoglio as a game changer and political activist.

Pope Francis & God's Magic Wand

The pope recently made statements about evolution that raised eyebrows in the media. Yet the RCC has held these views for some fifty years. I remember grappling with the evolutionary implications to the Gospel as a teenager, and being dissatisfied with the answers I received from my priest.

When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining God as a magus, with a magic wand able to make everything. But that is not so. He created beings and allowed them to develop according to the internal laws that He gave to each one, so that they were able to develop and arrive at their fullness of being. … And so creation continued for centuries and centuries, millennia and millennia, until it became which we know today, precisely because God is not a demiurge or conjurer, but the Creator who gives being to all things. The beginning of the world is not the work of chaos that owes its origin to another, but derives directly from a supreme Origin that creates out of love. The Big Bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution of nature does not contrast with the notion of Creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve. ~ Pope Francis (Emphasis mine)

One wonders what the pope means by "magus" and "magic wand." Is he really placing limitations on a God who created the universe ex nihilo? What does that say about the other dogmas supported by the R.C.C.?

One serious problem I've had with the R.C.C. - and especially this pope - is in comprehending its expansive and ambiguous language. At least one cardinal has recently admitted that:

"I'm sure he's [Pope Francis] not confused, himself. It's confusing for a lot of people, including myself at times. For someone who appreciates clarity I would like to get a few things clear so I can cooperate."

Creation Ministries International has responded to the pope HERE

In light of all this I found the following C.M.I. review of Fr. Victor P. Warkulwiz's book on creation fascinating. Here is an excerpt:

Blending this diversity of fields, Fr Warkulwiz has written a 519 page book not only on the scientific arguments for young-earth creationism, but also he has added a lot of history, philosophy, and theology. The book consists of 16 doctrines derived from Genesis 1–11, such as God created the world from nothing, God created each thing in the world immediately, God created each living creature according to its kind, God created the world in six natural days, God created the world several thousand years ago, the whole human species descended form the first man and woman and God destroyed the world that was with a worldwide Flood. He quotes extensively from the early and medieval fathers of the church, especially Augustine, Aquinas and Bonaventure. He drives home the main point that traditional Catholic teaching has always been young-earth creationism. It is only under the influence of the so-called Enlightenment that Catholic theologians and scholars have strayed. The influence of evolution culminated in the teachings of Jesuit priest, Pièrre Teilhard de Chardin, who mesmerized numerous Catholics to believe in evolution with his ‘theological fiction’.

Read it HERE

Speaking of Christ & Exclusivity

What I like about Alistair Begg is that I've sat in a pew at Parkside Church and shook my head at his approach to Acts 1:6 and Revelation 7. We disagree on eschatology. Yet he doesn't linger on these eschatological divisions. Instead, he consistently wraps his sermons around the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It's that attitude that gets him invited to places like Calvary Chapel. You can watch a Q & A with Alistair Begg and CC's David Guzik HERE

At the end of the video in my previous post, Begg touches upon a scene in C. S. Lewis' The Silver Chair.

Jill is dying of thirst and needs to drink at a stream. The great Lion Aslan is between it and her. She asks Aslan to move aside because she fears him. When he refuses, she asks him to promise not to eat her. Again, he refuses to promise. She tells Aslan that she dares not drink and he responds that she will then surely die. Jill then supposes that she must find another stream. The Lion tells her that:

"There is no other stream."  

I'd begun preparing this blog post on Saturday, but got sidetracked and put it off. Coincidentally, Pastor Begg's sermon was on 2 Timothy this Sunday morning. He talked about the need to prepare the next generation of church leaders to preach the gospel, and growing the current congregation's children in the knowledge of that gospel. He pointed to Paul's passing the baton onto Timothy, with that sense of urgency in knowing that his own time in the world was short.

Begg also touched upon the sad fact that some people become ashamed of the gospel - which brings me to the original motive for my post. Why aren't some leading church leaders shouting the gospel whenever the cameras and microphones are trained on them?

Why does Pope Francis dabble in political speeches, social agendas and ecumenism when he has the opportunity to proclaim Christ? Why has the ELCA taken Christ's work on the cross out of their church? See also HERE

Why does someone like Sojourners' Jim Wallis prefer thinking of the Last Supper as a Table-Fellowship scene rather than an Altar scene? See HERE and HERE 

From the link:

Notice that Wallis doesn’t connect the Passover meal, or the fact that Jesus is the perfect sacrificial Passover Lamb, to this scene. Instead it’s just a regular dinner, more of a friendly meal for fellowship and conversation. A place to plan how we can change the world.

Are they ashamed of The One and Only Stream?

Matt Waymeyer preaches II Timothy 4:1-4

David James on Petrus Romanus

Dave has already spent a good amount of time on his website interacting with Jonathan Cahn's best-selling novel Harbinger. He's also written a book critiquing it, which I think is highly recommended reading.  Dave demonstrates how Cahn's premises extend beyond the intention and reach of the Scriptures that he quotes as support. It's a pity many prophecy buffs have given him short shrift.

Now he's written an article addressing Petrus Romanus, which is co-authored by Tom Horn and Cris Putnam. I'm sure the negative review will upset many fans (if they read it). However, I think it's much needed. Highly speculative books of the PR genre give eschatology a bad name.

Dave points out that the new pope slipped past the writers' 10 likely candidates for Petrus Romanus, yet they were finally able to spin Francis to be a "fantastic fulfillment of prophecy.” One thing he doesn't mention is that the authors also sourced the controversial Malachi Martin for some of their material. M. Scott Peck collaborated with him at one point. Yet even Peck admitted that: "In fact, Malachi often was a liar."

You can read Dave's review HERE

P.S. This is also a worthwhile read (something to offend everyone?):

The Rise of Apocalyptic Paganism in the Church