Author: Papa Giorgio

The God Given Right Enforced On DOW Property

Published by Papa Giorgio

About Damn Time!

  • “The War Department’s uniformed service members are trained at the highest and unwavering standards,” Hegseth said. “These warfighters — entrusted with the safety of our nation — are no less entitled to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms than any other American. Our warfighters defend the right of others to carry. They should be able to carry themselves.”

Military policy on carrying personal firearms just got flipped by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who signed a memo directing military base commanders to allow personnel—“namely, uniformed service members”—to carry privately owned firearms “while in their nonofficial duty capacity on DOW property within the United States.”

Hegseth signed the memo while announcing the new policy on a video posted on “X” on Thursday. In his announcement, which ran just over 2 minutes, 30 seconds, Hegseth noted, “Before today, it was virtually impossible—most people probably don’t know this—for War Department personnel to get permission to carry and store their own personal weapons aligned with the state laws where we operate our installations. Effectively, our bases across the country were gun-free zones, unless you’re training, or unless you’re a military policeman, you couldn’t carry. You couldn’t bring your own firearm for your own personal protection onto post. Well, that’s no longer.”

In a statement obtained by Ammoland News from Kostas Moros, director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation, he said, “SAF fully supports Secretary Hegseth’s decision to enable our service members to be able to carry personal firearms on military bases, with any denials requiring a written explanation. SAF believes any ‘gun-free zones’ are constitutionally questionable, and also create soft targets that are enticing to criminals and others bent on violence. The fact that military bases, of all places, have been under such restrictions has long been perplexing to us. Serving your country should not require the wholesale abandonment of the Second Amendment right of armed self-defense. It’s excellent to hear that this dangerous policy is finally changing.”

In announcing this change of policy, Hegseth alluded to past tragedies on military bases, including a December 2019 attack at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida which left three men dead and eight other people wounded, and another incident at Fort Stewart-Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia in August 2025. That incident left five soldiers wounded, and was committed by Sgt. Quornelius Radford, using his own firearm. On March 31, he pleaded guilty to several charges, according to WTOC News. He will face further charges of attempted premeditated murder and unpremeditated murder on June 15.

Going back further in history, two separate shootings occurred at Fort Hood, Texas, one in 2009 during which 13 people were killed, and the other in 2014, which left four dead. The 2009 shooting was committed by then-Major Nidal Hasan, using his own firearm, as noted by the New York Times. Hasan was convicted and sentenced to death. Following a series of appeals, which stretched over several years, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Hasan’s final petition for a writ of certiorari. Last September, Hegseth said he would seek formal approval from President Donald Trump for the execution to be carried out, according to Wikipedia. ….

(AMMOLAND)

An Augustinian Mistranslation of Romans 5:12

Published by Papa Giorgio

This topic is god to combine with Psalm 51, HERE

  • The person who sins is the one who will die. A son won’t suffer punishment for the father’s iniquity, and a father won’t suffer punishment for the son’s iniquity. The righteousness of the righteous person will be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be on him. (Ezekiel 18:20)

I will first post a section from pages 30-31, 35 of Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique

Romans 5:12

Augustine found support for inherited guilt in a misinterpretation of the Latin version of Rom 5:12. At the end of the verse, Paul wrote that all die eph hō pantes hemartōn (“because all sinned”). Reading from a Latin text, however, Augustine saw the phrase in quo omnes peccaverunt and wrongly interpreted it to mean “in whom all sinned.” The resulting interpretation was that all humanity dies because all humanity sinned in Adam. The Greek phrase eph hō, however, which corresponds to the Latin in quo, means “because.” As support for this interpretation, we may simply consult major English Bible translations.51 Against Augustine’s interpretation, Rom 5:12 states all die because all sin. Though Rom 5:12 provides the primary biblical support for an Augustinian view of original sin, the verse became significant for his view only when he began to debate Pelagians on original sin.52 For Pelagius, Adam’s sin brought death into the world, but each person is held responsible for their own sin. Adam’s sin was the first and primary example of sinful behavior, but his descendants are indicted as guilty for the same reason as Adam—because of their own acts of rebellion against God.53 The early

church interpreted Romans as well as Adam’s relationship to humanity in similar ways. For Augustine, however, the Adam-Christ parallel represented two processes of being born: sinful people are born naturally by the natural man (Adam), but children of God are born spiritually by grace through Christ.54 This Adam-Christ parallel is seen when Augustine paired the verse with 1 Cor 15:22, which he quoted, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”55 For Augustine, Adam passed sin to his descendants by procreation, resulting in all people being destined for eternal damnation, including unbaptized infants.56

Though some interpret Rom 5:12 like Augustine, other Christian scholars reject inherited guilt. James D. G. Dunn wrote on Paul’s view of Adam and sin from Rom 5:12–21: “Guilt only enters into the reckoning with the individual’s own transgression. Human beings are not held responsible for the state into which they are born. That is the starting point of their personal responsibility, a starting point for which they are not liable.”57 Donald G. Bloesch explained, “The text in Romans to which Augustine often appealed (5:12) does not tell us how Adamic sin is related to general human sin and therefore cannot be used to argue for inherited sin or guilt; it simply informs us that death pervaded the whole human race ‘inasmuch as all have sinned’ (REB).”58 Joseph Fitzmyer cautioned readers of Rom 5:12 to distinguish between Paul’s writings and the later teachings of the church. This Catholic scholar explains that the doctrine of original sin (the view that all people inherit both a sinful nature and guilt) is a later teaching of the church rather than the explicit teaching of Paul. The doctrine of original sin was developed from later Augustinian writings and solidified through the Sixteenth Council of Carthage, the Second Council of Orange, and the Tridentine Council.59

[….]

Stanley Grenz (1950–2005) wrote, “Romans 5:12–21, like Ephesians 2:3, does not clearly and unequivocally declare that all persons inherit guilt directly because of Adam’s sin. The biblical case for original guilt is not strong.” Grenz concluded, “Our human nature has been corrupted.”81 He described the development of moral responsibility. “Somewhere in childhood we move from a stage in which our actions are not deemed morally accountable to the responsibility of acting as moral agents. In short, we cross a point which some refer to as the ‘age of accountability.’”82

51 The CSB, ESV, LEB, NASB, NET, NIV, NKJV render the phrase in question as “because all sinned.” Other translations use different words to communicate the same idea. For example, the KJV used the phrase “for that all have sinned.” Even the NABRE (New American Bible, Revised Edition), the translation used on the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, translated the phrase with a variation of “all sinned.”

52 Augustine quoted Rom 5:12 only three times before his debates with the Pelagians, and none of those occurrences of the verse concerned the transmission of sin. Beatrice, Transmission of Sin, 102.

53 See Pelagius’s views in Pelagius’ Commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, trans. Theodore de Bruyn, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 92–93 (5:12); 94 (5:15); 99 (6:19); 104 (7:17).

54 Augustine, On the Merits and Remission of Sins, and On the Baptism of Infants 1.19, in NPNF1, 5:22.

55 Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John 3.12, in NPNF1, 7:22.

56 Augustine, On the Merits and Remission of Sins, and On the Baptism of Infants 1.21, in NPNF1, 5:23: “Such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all.”

57 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 97.

58 Donald G. Bloesch, Jesus Christ: Savior & Lord (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 43–44.

59 Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible 33, ed. William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993), 408–9.

[….]

81 Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 205.

82 Grenz, 209.

This clip is taken from the Naked Bible Podcast. It was part of an answer to a question about abortion and what happens to babies who are aborted.

Dr. Leighton Flowers walks through the doctrine often referred to as “original sin” and looks at where the scripture seems to fly in the face of the concept that mankind is held morally accountable for that which is beyond their control.

And 2-pages from the book Anyone Can Be Saved (as well as 3-pages from Adam Harwood’s book, Christian Theology. Both say similar things)

Romans 5:12

ROMANS 5:12

Joseph Fitzmyer cautions readers of Rom 5 to distinguish between Paul’s writings and the later teachings of the church. The Catholic scholar explains that the doctrine of original sin (the view that all people inherit both a sinful nature and guilt) is a later teaching of the church rather than an explicit teaching of Paul. The doctrine of original sin was developed from later Augustinian writings and solidified through the Sixteenth Council of Carthage, the Second Council of Orange, and the Tridentine Council.

Romans 5:12 begins with the word “Therefore.” What was Paul’s previous argument? In Rom 5:1–2, Paul explains that we have been justified by faith and have peace with God through Christ. Also, through Christ we have access by faith to this grace. In vv. 3–5, those who have been given the Holy Spirit can hope in their suffering because of what God produces in them. Christ died for “the weak,” “ungodly,” people who were “still sinners” (vv. 6–8). Verse 9 begins in a way that is similar to v. 1 (“Since, therefore, we have been justified. . .”). Verse 1 mentions being justified by faith; verse 9 mentions being justified by his blood. Verses 9–11 provide assurance that we will be saved from God’s wrath by the life provided by Jesus.

In verse 12, Paul states that “just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men” (v. 12). Sin entered the world through one man, Adam. Death entered the world through sin. Death spread to all men. Why? The answer is found in verse 12, “because all sinned.” The text states neither “in whom all sinned” nor “because all sinned in Adam.” Death spread because people sinned. Even worse, “death reigned from Adam to Moses” (v. 14). But Christ is anticipated, and Adam is described as “a type of the one to come” (v. 14).

The remark that “one trespass led to condemnation” (v. 18) is clarified in v. 19, “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” (ESV). Do these verses teach that all people inherit the guilt and condemnation of Adam? If this is pressed as the meaning intended by Paul, then the parallel to all people inheriting guilt and condemnation is all people inheriting justification and life (v. 19). In order to affirm universal sinfulness but deny universal salvation, Millard Erickson posits a “conditional imputation” of Adam’s guilt. People must ratify the work of Adam by personally and knowingly sinning just as they must ratify the work of Christ by personally and knowingly repenting of sin and confessing Christ as Savior and Lord.

What does the text of Rom 5:12–21 not say? The text makes no mention of a covenant between God and Adam and it makes no mention of imputation of Adam’s guilt. Can those concepts be found in various volumes of systematic theology? Yes. Can those concepts be found in this passage? No. In his monumental work The Theology of Paul the Apostle, James D. G. Dunn articulates his rejection of inherited guilt as follows: “Nevertheless, guilt only enters into the reckoning with the individual’s own transgression. Human beings are not held responsible for the state into which they are born. That is the starting point of their personal responsibility, a starting point for which they are not liable.”

Perhaps other biblical texts support the doctrine of inherited guilt. Perhaps not. Either way, they are not discernible in Rom 5:12–21. Instead, we see that death spread to all of humanity because of the sin of one man, Adam. Thankfully, God answered the spread of death and condemnation through Adam with the hope of justification and life through Christ.

[I did not include foot notes in the excerpt above. I did – however – below]

ROMANS 5:12

Augustine found support for inherited guilt in a misinterpretation of the Latin version of Romans 5:12. At the end of the verse, Paul writes that all die eph hō pantes hemartōn (“because all sinned”). Reading from a Latin text, however, Augustine saw the phrase in quo omnes peccaverunt and wrongly interpreted it to mean “in whom all sinned.” The resulting interpretation was that all humanity dies because all humanity sinned in Adam. The Greek phrase eph hō , however, which corresponds to the Latin in quo , means “because.” As support for this interpretation, simply consult major English Bible translations. 34 Against Augustine’s interpretation, Romans 5:12 states all die because all sin. 35

Though Romans 5:12 provides the primary biblical support for an Augustinian view of original sin, the verse became significant for his view only when he began debating Pelagian views of original sin. 36 For Pelagius, Adam’s sin brought death into the world, but each person is held responsible for their own sin. Adam’s sin was the first and primary example of sinful behavior, but his descendants are indicted as guilty for the same reason as Adam—because of their own acts of rebellion against God. 37 The early church interpreted Romans as well as Adam’s relationship with humanity in similar ways. For Augustine, however, the Adam-Christ parallel represented two processes of being born: sinful people are born naturally by the natural man (Adam), but children of God are born spiritually by grace through Christ. 38 This Adam-Christ parallel is seen when Augustine paired the verse with 1 Corinthians 15:22, which he quotes, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” 39 For Augustine, Adam passed sin to his descendants by procreation, resulting in all people being destined for eternal damnation, including unbaptized infants. 40

Though some interpret Romans 5:12 like Augustine, other Christian scholars reject inherited guilt. James D. G. Dunn writes on Paul’s view of Adam and sin from Romans 5:12–21, “Guilt only enters into the reckoning with the individual’s own transgression. Human beings are not held responsible for the state into which they are born. That is the starting point of their personal responsibility, a starting point for which they are not liable.” 41 Donald G. Bloesch explains, “The text in Romans to which Augustine often appealed (5:12) does not tell us how Adamic sin is related to general human sin and therefore cannot be used to argue for inherited sin or guilt; it simply informs us that death pervaded the whole human race ‘inasmuch as all have sinned.’ (REB).” 42 Joseph Fitzmyer cautions readers of Romans 5:12 to distinguish between Paul’s writings and the later teachings of the church. The Catholic scholar explains that the doctrine of original sin (the view that all people inherit both a sinful nature and guilt) is a later teaching of the church rather than the explicit teaching of Paul. The doctrine of original sin was developed from later Augustinian writings and solidified through the Sixteenth Council of Carthage, the Second Council of Orange, and the Tridentine Council. 43

CONCLUSION ON AUGUSTINE’S VIEWS OF ORIGINAL SIN AS INHERITED GUILT

Augustine’s view of inherited guilt was based on distorted views of humanity, sexual union, Christian marriage, and his poor interpretations of key biblical texts. Augustine misinterpreted Job 14:4; Psalm 51:5; Ephesians 2:3; Hebrews 7:4–10; and Romans 5:12. The best-known example is that Augustine quotes Romans 5:12 to affirm that all sinned in Adam, which is not what the apostle Paul wrote. Augustine viewed infant baptism as the solution for the problems among infants of inherited guilt and demonic possession. The early church affirmed human sinfulness, but Augustine’s interpretations of Scripture and views of inherited guilt were innovations that were rejected by many of his contemporaries as well as subsequent generations of Christians.

34 The CSB, ESV , LEB , NASB , NET, NIV , NKJV render the phrase in question as “because all sinned.” Other translations use different words to communicate the same idea. For example, the KJV uses the phrase “for that all have sinned.” Even the NABRE, the translation used on the website of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, translates the phrase as “inasmuch as all sinned.”

35 Another possible interpretation of Rom 5:12 is that humans die and, as a result of their nature inherited from Adam, all sin. According to that view, eph hō serves as a consecutive conjunction meaning “with the result that.” In this case, the sin of Adam is the primary cause of our sinful condition; the result of that sin is the history of sinning on the part of all who enter the human race and sin of their own accord. For a summary and evaluation of major interpretations, see Robert H. Mounce, Romans, NAC 27 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 142 . He suggests this alternate interpretation does justice to the language involved and conforms to the apostle’s theological outlook as he builds his case in the book of Romans.

36 Augustine quoted Rom 5:12 only three times before his debates with the Pelagians, and none of those occurrences of the verse concern the transmission of sin (Beatrice, Transmission of Sin, 102).

37 See Pelagius’s views in Pelagius’s Commentary on St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, trans. Theodore de Bruyn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 5:12; 5:15; 6:19; 7:17.

38 Augustine, On the Merits 1.19.

39 Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John 3.12 (NPNF 1 7:22). See other quotations of 1 Cor 15:22 in Letter 140.8–9; 166.7; 169.4.

40 Augustine, On the Merits 1.21 (NPNF 1 5:23), “Such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all.”

41 James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 97.

42 Donald G. Bloesch, Jesus Christ: Savior and Lord (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997), 43–44.

43 Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 33 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1993), 408–9.

Adam Harwood, Christian Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Systematic (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2022), 364-366

Children and Depravity – Two Shorts

(Left video) 5-minutes plus; (Right video) 15-minutes plus

(See more about who introduced such “determinism into the church in a previous post, HERE)

Augustine’s Influence

Did Augustine actually invent the modern idea of original sin—and was it influenced by Gnosticism and Manichaeism rather than Scripture? In this eye-opening conversation, we unpack how Augustine’s shift from a traditional view of free will to a deterministic theology changed the course of Christian thought for centuries.

You’ll discover how Augustine’s 10 years as a Manichaean may have shaped his later teachings on infant baptism, predestination, and the imputed guilt of Adam—concepts that eventually inspired Calvinist doctrine and debates that still divide the Church today.

Join us as we trace the timeline of Augustine’s writings, his secret revisions, and the pivotal debates with Pelagius that gave birth to one of the most controversial doctrines in church history. Whether you’re a theology student, pastor, or just curious about Christian origins, this episode will challenge what you thought you knew about sin, salvation, and sovereignty.

However, I think this next video is the winner. However, it is long, but it shows the hypocrisy of some Calvinists in rejecting the “T” in TULIP to say babies go to heaven:

Dr. Leighton Flowers plays a clip from Jeremiah Notier, aka The Apologetic Dog, in which he accuses Dr. Flowers of being a “Pelagian” because I do not affirm the concept that all babies are born guilty and deserving of Hell.

BONUS PDF

Chapter 4 of Adam Harwood’s book, The Spiritual Condition of Infants: A Biblical-Historical Survey and Systematic Proposal (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2011), chpt title: “What Do Infants Receive from Adam? (Romans 5:12–21)” (PDF)

Calvinism’s Reading Rainbow | John 3:36

Published by Papa Giorgio

John 3:36 (CSB):

  • The one who believes in the Son has eternal life, but the one who rejects the Son will not see life; instead, the wrath of God remains on him.”

How could this be rewritten using the Calvinist TULIP philosophy overlaid to it (3-versions):

  • The one whom God, in His sovereign and unconditional election, has irresistibly drawn out of total depravity by His effectual grace—causing him to believe in the Son—has eternal life; but the one whom God has justly passed over, for whom Christ’s atonement was never intended, and who therefore remains dead in sins and rejects the Son, will not see life; instead, the wrath of God abides on him forever, for he was never chosen to persevere.
  • “The one whom God has sovereignly chosen and irresistibly drawn to believe in the Son has eternal life. But the one God has not chosen rejects the Son and remains under God’s wrath, for he was never given new life.”
  • “Those elected by God and irresistibly caused to believe in the Son receive eternal life. Those passed over by God reject the Son and stay under His abiding wrath.”

Looping in R.C. Spoul’s and John MacArthur’s “programmed to believe lies” and can “never choose good”

  • “The one whom God has sovereignly elected and irresistibly caused to believe in the Son has eternal life [primary cause]. But the one God has passed over—decreeing his total depravity, programming him to love sin and believe lies so that he can never choose good [secondary cause]—rejects the Son and remains under God’s abiding wrath.”

A Tired Mantra of the 2020 Election and the Courts

Published by Papa Giorgio

KEY:  (Media and Democrats) 61 cases were brought and defeated. (Truth) 93 cases were brought. 32 were heard on merit; 24 of those 32 decisions favored the GOP. 75%

TRANSCRIPT:

STEPHEN CROWDER: Here’s another claim that you’ll hear, and we’ll do an entire segment on this, because a lot of people still believe this, just like a lot of people still believe that Donald Trump praised neo-Nazis as very fine people. And by that, I mean stupid people. The claim that is made is that even the courts themselves, what do you think you know more than the court? The courts in 2020, made it very clear. They stated that the election was absolutely fair.

ABC NEWS: More than two dozen cases have been brought and no finding of fraud from any judge, state or federal, Republican or Democratic. Case after case tossed out and the judges strikingly dismissive of the claims.

STEPHEN CROWDER: Truth…..

That’s wrong.

So only 32 of the 93 election cases were ever even heard – on merit. Okay? So let’s just take those, meaning those were actually heard. 24 of those 32 decisions actually favored the GOP, favored people challenging the results in one capacity or another. Here’s the problem.

After the election, there’s nothing you can do about it.

So, let’s just aim to do better next time.

Then you have a state like Virginia aims to do better.

No, DOJ is going to sue you, can’t do that.

Are you starting to get the picture? Are you starting to get the picture?

You literally have an election where there absolutely was foul, not just talking about media and big tech, challenged in court. 24 of those 32 said, yeah, there’s something here, but there’s nothing you can do. So, let’s just, the best thing to do is let’s not look backwards. Let’s look forward. Let’s fix it for next time. States step in and try and fix it. and the Federal Government in one capacity or another says, no, can’t do that. Let me ask you this. What recourse is there?

GERALD MORGAN JR: And the media is in lockstep on these cases. I didn’t know that we had won 75% of the cases that were brought and actually hurt on the merits. What you hear the media parrot is the 61 number.

STEPHEN CROWDER: Right

GERALD MORGAN JR: 61 cases were brought and defeated. That’s what they parrot on every single show that has addressed this that I’ve ever heard. 61 cases, 61 cases. Somebody needs to be telling them 24 out of 32 decided on the merit. We won. Right. That’s what people need to hear because I heard it and I actually got a little down. I’m like, oh crap, well, they brought 61 cases. I know a lot weren’t even heard on the merits, but we didn’t win one. We didn’t get anything out of this. Texas banded with other states, attorneys general to try to sue Pennsylvania. And we got nothing from the Supreme Court because they basically disenfranchised Texas voters in other states by changing their constitution illegally to vote? Like 24 of 32, you won 75% of the time when the cases were heard on the merits. Take that and make sure everybody hears it.

STEPHEN CROWDER: Yep

Before TDS There Was BDS

Published by Papa Giorgio

This post was originally posted here Feb 2011 with the title: “What You Are not Seeing On Mainstream News Shows-Some Carry Signs Likening Republicans to Hitler and Nazis.” I found the videos again, and re-uploaded the graphics. I added an article as well.

NEWS BUSTERS HAT-TIP:

BREITBART HAT-TIP:

Democrats rhetoric has changed zero-percent since President Ford (full archived article). Democrats have called Republicans racist and Nazis for 62 years. I saw some signs at the SCV No Kings protest showing Trump to be the same. Just like Bush. Just like Romney…. on and on. TO WIT:

….. Let’s start with former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) and his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in 1964. Over 50 years before Trump decided to run for president, celebrities, journalists, politicians, and other politicos warned that the GOP presidential nominee was an extreme fascist who would cause considerable harm to the country. Goldwater, who served as a pilot during World War II, was likened to Nazis and fascists for promoting conservatism during his presidential campaign.

For example, the then-Democratic governor of California, Edmund Gerland “Pat” Brown, remarked about Goldwater’s acceptance speech, claiming it “had the stench of fascism. All we needed to hear was Heil Hitler.” It should be noted that Goldwater served as a pilot in the military during WWII. Brown didn’t have any military service at all.

Other comments about Goldwater included a scathing rebuke from civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“We see dangerous signs of Hitlerism in the Goldwater campaign,” King said.

Baseball legend Jackie Robinson, who broke Major League Baseball’s color barrier, said of Goldwater’s speech, “I would say that I now believe I know how it felt to be a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.”

The then-mayor of San Francisco, the city where the 1964 Republican National Convention was held, said the GOP “had Mein Kampf as their political bible.”

The despicable comments continued the following election in 1968. Then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey, and Democratic nominee for president, remarked about the election, “If the British had not fought in 1940, Hitler would have been in London, and if Democrats do not fight in 1968, Nixon will be in the White House.”

Former President Richard Nixon won the election, but the Hitler, Nazi, and fascist comparisons never stopped. For example, in 1970, a political poster featured an image of Adolf Hitler, wearing a Nazi armband, holding a mask of Nixon.

Meanwhile, a news article from October 1972, available for viewing on the CIA’s website, referred to “Nixon’s Nazis” as part of commentary criticizing Nixon. Then there is a photograph from October 1973 of someone wearing a Nixon mask with a crown, giving the Nazi salute.

Gerald Ford followed Nixon as president and as a Republican who was called a fascist. In 1974, a member of the American Civil Liberties Union criticized Ford for his lack of punitive action against Nixon.

“If [President] Ford’s principle had been the rule in Nuremberg,” he said, “the Nazi leaders would have been let off, and only the people, who carried out their schemes, would have been tried,” the ACLU said at the time.

Additionally, in the Gerald Ford Library Museum, a document describes an interaction with a woman in 1975 in which Ford was harassed and repeatedly called a “fascist” and a “fascist pig.”

Surely, over a decade of accusations and allegations of fascism never coming to fruition would stop Democrats from calling Republicans Nazis, fascists, or comparing them to Hitler, right?

Wrong.

Former President Ronald Reagan was the next target in the Democrats’ line of unsubstantiated accusations of fascism.

Rep. William Clay (D-MO) stated that Reagan wanted to “replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.”

The Los Angeles Times cartoonist Paul Conrad drew a panel depicting Reagan plotting a fascist putsch in a darkened Munich beer hall. Harry Stein (later a conservative convert) wrote in Esquire that the voters who supported Reagan were comparable to the “good Germans” in “Hitler’s Germany.”

American Enterprise Institute scholar Steven Hayward highlighted another incident in which the intelligentsia and academia also contributed to the Reagan fascist comparisons when John Roth, a Holocaust scholar from the Claremont Colleges, commented about Reagan’s election:

“I could not help remembering how 40 years ago economic turmoil had conspired with Nazi nationalism and militarism — all intensified by Germany’s defeat in World War I​—to send the world reeling into catastrophe. … It is not entirely mistaken to contemplate our postelection state with fear and trembling.”

Former President George W. Bush might have been the Republican politician who faced the harshest and most vile criticism before Trump. Bush was regularly called every dirty name in the book, from racist to Nazi to fascist to war criminal. There are many examples of linking Bush to Hitler, Nazis, and fascists.

In 2012, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), the same Romney so many Democrats love today, was also linked to Nazis and fascism. One delegate from Kansas (at the time) said Romney was a habitual liar and likened him to Hitler “while criticizing the accuracy of Romney’s campaign talking points.”

A chairman of the California Democratic Party compared then-vice presidential candidate (and eventual former Speaker of the House) Paul Ryan, again, the same Ryan loved by many Democrats today, to Nazi filmmaker and propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. It is the same line of attacks Democrats have used against Trump. …..

The below is just a reminder of some of the anti-war marches, the May Day marches, and the anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-capitalist liberals/Democrats of years past (most of these pics come from Zombie Time):

<?xml version=”1.0″?><on:exif_data version=”3.0″> <on:picture_id>0</on:picture_id> <on:file_checksum>0</on:file_checksum></on:exif_data>

Merica and Israel Are Still Winning in Iran (Mar 20, 2026)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Mar 20, 2026) Tonight, Larry speaks on the Iran war hitting twenty-one days and discusses who’s winning… Larry’s full audio:

John Spencer

CS Lewis: Our White Being God’s Black

Published by Papa Giorgio

I wanted to separate out two CS Lewis chapters I quote from in my first (May 2025) dealing with the topic at hand. I wanted to let Lewis’ insights burn in the mind of the believer. I will add stuff after the Lewis excerpts, one being a quote from a book recommended from the “lectern” by a pastor at a church I am in the process of leaving… and I wonder what Lewis would have thought if he had read this — more than he already intimates below. [But read the Lewis excerpts before even reading the quote, Lewis stands on his own. I will add the short quote AFTER the focus of one of the 20th century’s apologetic giants thoughts.] I include the full audio chapter at the end of each partial “print” excerpt.

CS LEWIS had a huge influence on my apologetic life. The quotes are from his The Problem of Pain, chapters 3 and 4:

“Divine Goodness”

Any consideration of the goodness of God at once threat­ens us with the following dilemma.

On the one hand, if God is wiser than we His judge­ment must differ from ours on many things, and not least on good and evil. What seems to us good may therefore not be good in His eyes, and what seems to us evil may not be evil.

On the other hand, if God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white’, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say ‘God is good’, while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say ‘God is we know not what’. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) ‘good’ we shall obey, if at all, only through fear—and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend. The doctrine of Total Depravity— when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing— may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil-worship.

The escape from this dilemma depends on observing what happens, in human relations, when the man of infe­rior moral standards enters the society of those who are better and wiser than he and gradually learns to accept their standards—a process which, as it happens, I can describe fairly accurately, since I have undergone it. When I came first to the University I was as nearly with­out a moral conscience as a boy could be. Some faint dis­taste for cruelty and for meanness about money was my utmost reach—of chastity, truthfulness, and self-sacrifice I thought as a baboon thinks of classical music. By the mercy of God I fell among a set of young men (none of them, by the way, Christians) who were sufficiently close to me in intellect and imagination to secure immediate intimacy, but who knew, and tried to obey, the moral law. Thus their judgement of good and evil was very different from mine. Now what happens in such a case is not in the least like being asked to treat as ‘white’ what was hitherto called black. The new moral judgements never enter the mind as mere reversals (though they do reverse them) of previous judgements but ‘as lords that are certainly expected’. You can have no doubt in which direction you are moving: they are more like good than the little shreds of good you already had, but are, in a sense, continuous with them. But the great test is that the recognition of the new standards is accompanied with the sense of shame and guilt: one is conscious of having blundered into soci­ety that one is unfit for. It is in the light of such experi­ences that we must consider the goodness of God. Beyond all doubt, His idea of ‘goodness’ differs from ours; but you need have no fear that, as you approach it, you will be asked simply to reverse your moral standards. When the relevant difference between the Divine ethics and your own appears to you, you will not, in fact, be in any doubt that the change demanded of you is in the direction you already call ‘better’. The Divine ‘goodness’ differs from ours, but it is not sheerly different: it differs from ours not as white from black but as a perfect circle from a child’s first attempt to draw a wheel. But when the child has learned to draw, it will know that the circle it then makes is what it was trying to make from the very beginning.

This doctrine is presupposed in Scripture. Christ calls men to repent—a call which would be meaningless if God’s standards were sheerly different from that which they already knew and failed to practise. He appeals to our existing moral judgement—‘Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?’ (Luke 12:57) God in the Old Testament expostulates with men on the basis of their own concep­tions of gratitude, fidelity, and fair play: and puts Himself, as it were, at the bar before His own creatures—‘What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me?’ (Jeremiah 2:5.) …

CS Lewis | The Problem of Pain (Chapter 3)

“Human Wickedness”

…A recovery of the old sense of sin is essential to Christianity. Christ takes it for granted that men are bad. Until we really feel this assumption of His to be true, though we are part of the world He came to save, we are not part of the audience to whom His words are addressed. We lack the first condition for understanding what He is talking about. And when men attempt to be Christians without this preliminary consciousness of sin, the result is almost bound to be a certain resentment against God as to one always inexplicably angry. Most of us have at times felt a secret sympathy with the dying farmer who replied to the Vicar’s dissertation on repentance by asking ‘What harm have I ever done Him?’ There is the real rub. The worst we have done to God is to leave Him alone—why can’t He return the compliment? Why not live and let live? What call has He, of all beings, to be ‘angry’? It’s easy for Him to be good!

Now at the moment when a man feels real guilt— moments too rare in our lives—all these blasphemies vanish away. Much, we may feel, can be excused to human infirmities: but not this—this incredibly mean and ugly action which none of our friends would have done, which even such a thorough-going little rotter as X would have been ashamed of, which we would not for the world allow to be published. At such a moment we really do know that our character, as revealed in this action, is, and ought to be, hateful to all good men, and, if there are powers above man, to them. A God who did not regard this with unappeasable distaste would not be a good being. We cannot even wish for such a God—it is like wishing that every nose in the universe were abol­ished, that smell of hay or roses or the sea should never again delight any creature, because our own breath hap­pens to stink.

When we merely say that we are bad, the ‘wrath’ of God seems a barbarous doctrine; as soon as we perceive our badness, it appears inevitable, a mere corollary from God’s goodness. To keep ever before us the insight derived from such a moment as I have been describing, to learn to detect the same real inexcusable corruption under more and more of its complex disguises, is therefore indis­pensable to a real understanding of the Christian faith. This is not, of course, a new doctrine. I am attempting nothing very splendid in this chapter. I am merely trying to get my reader (and, still more, myself) over a pons asi-norum—to take the first step out of fools’ paradise and utter illusion. But the illusion has grown, in modern times, so strong, that I must add a few considerations tending to make the reality less incredible.

  1. We are deceived by looking on the outside of things. We suppose ourselves to be roughly not much worse than Y, whom all acknowledge for a decent sort of person, and certainly (though we should not claim it out loud) better than the abominable X. Even on the superficial level we are probably deceived about this. Don’t be too sure that your friends think you as good as Y. The very fact that you selected him for the comparison is suspicious: he is prob­ably head and shoulders above you and your circle. But let us suppose that Y and yourself both appear ‘not bad’. How far Y’s appearance is deceptive, is between Y and God. His may not be deceptive: you know that yours is.

Does this seem to you a mere trick, because I could say the same to Y and so to every man in turn? But that is just the point. Every man, not very holy or very arrogant, has to ‘live up to’ the outward appearance of other men: he knows there is that within him which falls far below even his most careless public behaviour, even his loosest talk. In an instant of time—while your friend hesitates for a word—what things pass through your mind? We have never told the whole truth. We may confess ugly facts— the meanest cowardice or the shabbiest and most prosaic impurity—but the tone is false. The very act of confess-ing—an infinitesimally hypocritical glance—a dash of humour—all this contrives to dissociate the facts from your very self. No one could guess how familiar and, in a sense, congenial to your soul these things were, how much of a piece with all the rest: down there, in the dreaming inner warmth, they struck no such discordant note, were not nearly so odd and detachable from the rest of you, as they seem when they are turned into words. We imply, and often believe, that habitual vices are excep­tional single acts, and make the opposite mistake about our virtues—like the bad tennis player who calls his nor­mal form his ‘bad days’ and mistakes his rare successes for his normal. I do not think it is our fault that we cannot tell the real truth about ourselves; the persistent, life-long, inner murmur of spite, jealousy, prurience, greed and self-complacence, simply will not go into words. But the  important thing is that we should not mistake our inevitably limited utterances for a full account of the worst that is inside.

  1. A reaction—in itself wholesome—is now going on against purely private or domestic conceptions of moral­ity, a reawakening of the social We feel our­selves to be involved in an iniquitous social system and to share a corporate guilt. This is very true: but the enemy can exploit even truths to our deception. Beware lest you are making use of the idea of corporate guilt to distract your attention from those humdrum, old-fashioned guilts of your own which have nothing to do with ‘the system’ and which can be dealt with without waiting for the mil­lennium. For corporate guilt perhaps cannot be, and cer­tainly is not, felt with the same force as personal guilt. For most of us, as we now are, this conception is a mere excuse for evading the real issue. When we have really learned to know our individual corruption, then indeed we can go on to think of the corporate guilt and can hardly think of it too much. But we must learn to walk before we run.
  2. We have a strange illusion that mere time cancels sin. I have heard others, and I have heard myself, recounting cruelties and falsehoods committed in boyhood as if they were no concern of the present speaker’s, and even with laughter. But mere time does nothing either to the fact or to the guilt of a sin. The guilt is washed out not by time but by repentance and the blood of Christ: if we have repented these early sins we should remember the price of our forgiveness and be humble. As for the fact of a sin, is it probable that anything cancels it? All times are eternally present to God. Is it not at least possible that along some one line of His multi-dimensional eternity He sees you forever in the nursery pulling the wings off a fly, forever toadying, lying, and lusting as a schoolboy, forever in that moment of cowardice or insolence as a subaltern? It may be that salvation consists not in the cancelling of these eternal moments but in the perfected humanity that bears the shame forever, rejoicing in the occasion which it fur­nished to God’s compassion and glad that it should be common knowledge to the universe. Perhaps in that eter­nal moment St Peter—he will forgive me if I am wrong— forever denies his Master. If so, it would indeed be true that the joys of Heaven are for most of us, in our present condition, ‘an acquired taste’—and certain ways of life may render the taste impossible of acquisition. Perhaps the lost are those who dare not go to such a public Of course I do not know that this is true; but I think the possibility is worth keeping in mind.
  3. We must guard against the feeling that there is ‘safety in numbers’. It is natural to feel that if all men are as bad as the Christians say, then badness must be very excus­able. If all the boys plough in the examination, surely the papers must have been too hard? And so the masters at that school feel till they learn that there are other schools where ninety per cent of the boys passed on the same papers. Then they begin to suspect that the fault did not lie with the examiners. Again, many of us have had the experience of living in some local pocket of human soci-ety—some particular school, college, regiment or profes­sion where the tone was bad. And inside that pocket certain actions were regarded as merely normal (‘Every­one does it’) and certain others as impracticably virtuous and Quixotic. But when we emerged from that bad soci­ety we made the horrible discovery that in the outer world our ‘normal’ was the kind of thing that no decent person ever dreamed of doing, and our ‘Quixotic’ was taken for granted as the minimum standard of decency. What had seemed to us morbid and fantastic scruples so long as we were in the ‘pocket’ now turned out to be the only moments of sanity we there enjoyed. It is wise to face the possibility that the whole human race (being a small thing in the universe) is, in fact, just such a local pocket of evil—an isolated bad school or regiment inside which minimum decency passes for heroic virtue and utter corruption for pardonable imperfection. But is there any evidence—except Christian doctrine itself—that this is so? I am afraid there is. In the first place, there are those odd people among us who do not accept the local stan­dard, who demonstrate the alarming truth that a quite dif­ferent behaviour is, in fact, possible. Worse still, there is the fact that these people, even when separated widely in space and time, have a suspicious knack of agreeing with one another in the main—almost as if they were in touch with some larger public opinion outside the pocket. What is common to Zarathustra, Jeremiah, Socrates, Gautama, Christ1 and Marcus Aurelius, is something pretty sub­stantial. Thirdly, we find in ourselves even now a theoret­ical approval of this behaviour which no one practises. Even inside the pocket we do not say that justice, mercy, fortitude, and temperance are of no value, but only that the local custom is as just, brave, temperate and merciful as can reasonably be expected. It begins to look as if the neglected school rules even inside this bad school were connected with some larger world—and that when the term ends we might find ourselves facing the public opin­ion of that larger world. But the worst of all is this: we cannot help seeing that only the degree of virtue which we now regard as impracticable can possibly save our race from disaster even on this planet. The standard which seems to have come into the ‘pocket’ from outside, turns out to be terribly relevant to conditions inside the pocket—so relevant that a consistent practice of virtue by the human race even for ten years would fill the earth from pole to pole with peace, plenty, health, merriment, and heartsease, and that nothing else will. It may be the custom, down here, to treat the regimental rules as a dead letter or a counsel of perfection: but even now, everyone who stops to think can see that when we meet the enemy this neglect is going to cost every man of us his life. It is then that we shall envy the ‘morbid’ person, the ‘pedant’ or ‘enthusiast’ who really has taught his company to shoot and dig in and spare their water bottles.

[….]

This chapter will have been misunderstood if anyone describes it as a reinstatement of the doctrine of Total Depravity. I disbelieve that doctrine, partly on the logical ground that if our depravity were total we should not know ourselves to be depraved, and partly because experience shows us much goodness in human nature. Nor am I recommending universal gloom. The emotion of shame has been valued not as an emotion but because of the insight to which it leads. I think that insight should be permanent in each man’s mind: but whether the painful emotions that attend it should also be encouraged, is a technical problem of spiritual direction on which, as a layman, I have little call to speak. My own idea, for what it is worth, is that all sadness which is not either arising from the repentance of a concrete sin and hastening towards concrete amendment or restitution, or else arising from pity and hastening to active assistance, is simply bad; and I think we all sin by needlessly disobeying the apostolic injunction to ‘rejoice’ as much as by anything else. Humility, after the first shock, is a cheerful virtue: it is the high-minded unbeliever, desperately trying in the teeth of repeated disillusions to retain his ‘faith in human nature’, who is really sad. I have been aiming at an intellectual, not an emotional, effect: I have been trying to make the reader believe that we actually are, at present, creatures whose character must be, in some respects, a horror to God, as it is, when we really see it, a horror to ourselves. This I believe to be a fact: and I notice that the holier a man is, the more fully he is aware of that fact. Perhaps you have imagined that this humility in the saints is a pious illusion at which God smiles. That is a most dangerous error. It is theoretically dangerous, because it makes you identify a virtue (i.e., a perfection) with an illusion (i.e., an imperfection), which must be nonsense. It is practically dangerous because it encourages a man to mistake his first insights into his own corruption for the first beginnings of a halo round his own silly head. No, depend upon it; when the saints say that they—even they—are vile, they are recording truth with scientific accuracy.

CS Lewis | The Problem of Pain (Chapter 4)

THE STONE IN THE SHOE:

This was a book recommended in a men’s group, and this comes from my copy… it is repeated below as well in the excerpt from SOTERIOLOGY 101:

Ephesians 1:11 goes even further by declaring that God in Christ

“works all things according to the counsel of his will.” Here the Greek word for “works” is energeø, which indicates that God not merely carries all of the universe’s objects and events to their appointed ends but that he actually brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child: “The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil” (Prov. 16:4, NASB ).14 “When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other” (Eccl. 7:14, NIV).

Mark Talbot, in John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds., Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 42.

This entire article is well worth the read… and I understand Calvinists do not even allow free will even in secondary cause (see short video embedded in my introduction to a letter which includes John Hendryx and John MacArthur)

Here is the short excerpt from the longer article, keep in mind “that our ‘black’ may be His ‘white’,”

I recently came upon this question in my twitter feed.  In case it isn’t obvious, my answer to this shocking question is unapologetically, “HELL NO!”  And I mean that quite literally. Hell, the place were creatures go who “BRING ABOUT” such atrocities, screams what should be the obvious answer: NO! Our perfectly HOLY God does not bring about the sins for which people suffer for in Hell!

However, as obvious as the answer to this question may seem, John Piper, and other notable Calvinistic scholars, teach a highly controversial perspective:

“God . . . brings about all things in accordance with his will. In other words, it isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those who love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects for his glory (see Ex. 9:13-16; John 9:3) and his people’s good (see Heb. 12:3-11; James 1:2-4). This includes—as incredible and as unacceptable as it may currently seem—God’s having even brought about the Nazis’ brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child…” 

(Video Link) — Mark R. Talbot, “’All the Good That Is Ours in Christ’: Seeing God’s Gracious Hand in the Hurts Others Do to Us,” in John Piper and Justin Taylor (eds.), Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006), 31-77 (quote from p. 42).

So, look at the two different beliefs side by side:

  • Traditionalism affirms that God works to redeem man’s morally evil choices and bring about good from the heinous consequences of those autonomous choices. God is seen as most glorious because of His redemptive grace in overcoming evil.
  • Calvinism, according to Piper, affirms that God “isn’t just managing to turn the evil aspects of our world to good; it is rather that He Himself brings about these evil aspects for His glory.” God, according to this perspective, is seen as most glorious for His power and control of the evil itself.

So, is God bringing about the very moral evil that He works to redeem? 

[….]

I’ll allow John MacArthur, another notable Calvinistic pastor, bring some much needed balance to this approach:

If God is sovereign, is He responsible for evil?

No. Scripture says that when God finished His creation, He saw everything and declared it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Many Scriptures affirm that God is not the author of evil: “God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone” (James 1:13). “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33)—and if that is true, He cannot in any way be the author of evil.

Occasionally someone will quote Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) and claim it proves God made evil as a part of His creation: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

But the New American Standard Bible gives the sense of Isaiah 45:6-7 more clearly: “There is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.” In other words, God devises calamity as a judgment for the wicked. But in no sense is He the author of evil. …

[See my post in responding to an atheist on Isaiah 45]

Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world because of sin. Death, pain, disease, stress, exhaustion, calamity, and all the bad things that happen came as a result of the entrance of sin into the universe (see Genesis 3:14-24). All those evil effects of sin continue to work in the world and will be with us as long as sin is.

First Corinthians 10:13 promises us that God will not permit a greater trial than we can bear. And James 1:13 tells us that God will not tempt us with evil.

God is certainly sovereign over evil. There’s a sense in which it is proper even to say that evil is part of His eternal decree. He planned for it. It did not take Him by surprise. It is not an interruption of His eternal plan. He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure (Isaiah 46:9-10).

But God’s role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good (Romans 8:28). – John MacArthur

Please re-read that last paragraph that I emboldened. He says, “He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends,” while Piper’s article says the opposite, “God isn’t just managing to turn the evil aspects of our world to good; it is rather that He Himself brings about these evil aspects for His glory.”  So, which is it? Is God bringing about evil or simply permitting it?

In another must read article, and why I consider myself a Baptist, but not in the Al Mohler sense, is this one which — again — should be read in full. Here is the short clip via BAPTIST NEWS:

… “This is excruciatingly troubling to me,” the user commented.

So to the Calvinists
Pamela Butler
10 years old
Rollerblading
Kidnapped by Keith Nelson
Taken to a wooded area
Tortured for hours including electrocution
Raped
Strangled to death
Please tell me how this is NOT a tragedy.

Then along came R.C. Sproul Jr. in an attempt to do just that.

Without offering a single word of empathy or lament, Sproul Jr. started in: “The closest the world has ever come to a tragedy is when a man, who had never sinned, was tortured to death. Do you believe God ordained that event?”

When the X poster asked how the Crucifixion of Jesus “remotely compares to the event I described,” Sproul Jr. added: “No, it does not remotely compare. Because in one instance a little girl received the judgment from God she had earned. In the other a perfect man received the judgment I earn. So you are OK with saying God ordained the torment of Jesus but not a sinner?”

From there, Sproul Jr. boasted of being “an orthodox theologian who affirms the doctrine of original sin,” attacked the original poster for using “an emotional appeal that denies what the Bible clearly teaches about our sin,” and demanded that the person “submit to what the Bible plainly teaches.”

He concluded, “If the girl is not a believer, she received justice from God.”

While Sproul Jr.’s words are horrifyingly shocking to anyone who has even a hint of human decency about them, they are indeed the logical outflow of the power- and violence-obsessed gospel prevalent among conservative evangelical Calvinists today. There’s a link between the pop-Calvinist’s obsession with power over women and their indifference to violence against women. And when we begin to probe, we’ll discover the connection in their gospel.

[….]

‘Meaningful rape’

Lest we think this intellectualized indifference toward the rape and murder of 10-year-old girls is a unique manifestation of the internal rot of the Sprouls, it’s actually one of the skeletons in the closet of the conservative evangelical Calvinist world that has come to dominate much of the conservative Reformed Baptist and Pentecostal worlds today.

In a debate on The Bible Answer Man, the Calvinist apologist James White was asked, “When a child is raped, is God responsible? And did he decree that rape?”

White answered, “If he didn’t, then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.” And when pressed further, he doubled down, asserting, “Yes. Because if not, then it’s meaningless and purposeless.”

While talking with a woman about people who have been gang raped, Jeff Durbin said, “God actually has a morally sufficient reason for all the evil he plans. … He actually decrees all things.”

In Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, which was edited by John Piper, Mark Talbot argued: “It isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those that love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects. … This includes God’s having even brought about the Nazi’s brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Nadar and even the sexual abuse of a young child.”

Vincent Cheung wrote: “Scripture teaches that God’s will determines everything. Nothing exists or happens without God, not merely permitting, but actively willing it to exist or happen.”

John Piper tried to make sense of it by saying: “God disapproves of some of what he ordains to happen. That is, he forbids some of the things he brings about.”

In other words, Sproul Jr.’s indifference toward rape and murder isn’t simply the rantings of a drunk driver who goes on websites designed to facilitate adultery. It’s part of what mainstream conservative evangelical Calvinist leaders across the board celebrate today as good news.

I have a collection of quotes related to this here.

Counter Calvinist “Toons” I Like

Published by Papa Giorgio

These are some counter Calvinist graphics I liked that are not my creation. I may have tweaked them a bit in “sightly more realism vs. drawn” or changed a sentence… but they are not changes at all or much. As usual…

Click any graphic to enlarge
I will add to these over time

 

Grace Enablements | Provisionism

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • Within the Non-Calvinist camp, there are at least two nuanced views on how God allows sinners to respond in faith. The first view is the Arminian view — which says that God’s work of grace (prevenient grace) for all people is needed to enable any sinner to freely choose to respond in faith to the Gospel message. The second view is the Provisionist View — which says that the Gospel message itself [see more below]  is God’s work of grace so that when it is preached to all people, any sinner can freely choose to respond in faith. The proclamation of the Gospel is powerfully sufficient enough to bring salvation to those who will believe. While the Arminian and the Provisionist each have a different take on why all humans can respond to God’s offer, these two views both affirm the importance of God’s initiative of grace to invite all sinners to salvation. (from the book Grace For All: Understanding God’s Plan of Salvation).

— Michael R. Cariño

The “More Below”

Grace Enablements

Includes but are not limited to: God’s salvific love for all (John 3:16), God’s manifestation of his power so that all may know he is the Sovereign (Isa 45:21–22) and Creator (Rom 1:18–20), which assures that everyone has opportunity to know about him. Christ paying for all sins (John 1:29), conviction of the Holy Spirit (John 16:7–11), working of the Holy Spirit (Heb 6:1–6), enlightening of the Son (John 1:9), God’s teaching (John 6:45), God opening minds and hearts (Luke 24:45; Acts 16:14; 26:17–18;), and the power of the gospel (Rom 1:16), without such redemptive grace, no one seeks or comes to God (Rom 3:11).

Because of these gracious provisions and workings of God, man can choose to seek and find God (Jer 29:13; Acts 17:11–12). Moreover, no one can come to God without God calling (Acts 2:39), drawing (John 6:44), and that God is drawing all individuals (John 12:32). The same Greek word for draw, helkuō, is used in both verses. “About 115 passages condition salvation on believing alone, and about 35 simply on faith.” Other grace enablements may include providential workings in and through other people, situations, and timing or circumstances that are a part of grace to provide an opportunity for every individual to choose to follow Christ.

These are grace enablements in at least three ways; first, they are provided by God’s grace rather than deserved by mankind; second, the necessary components for each and every individual to have a genuine opportunity to believe unto salvation are provided or restored by God; third, they are provided by God without respect to whether the individual will believe or reject, which response God knew in eternity past.

The offer of the gospel is unconditional, but God sovereignly determined to condition the reception of the offer upon grace-enabled faith; therefore, faith is not reflective of a work or virtue of man, but of God’s sovereign plan of salvation by grace through faith (Eph 2:8). This indicates faith is the means to being regenerated and saved, not the reason for being saved. This truth of Scripture does not imply God is held captive to the choice of man, but rather it demonstrates God in eternity coextensively determined to create man with otherwise choice and provide a genuine offer of salvation, which can be accepted by grace-enabled faith or rejected. Additionally, to fulfill this plan, God is not obligated to disseminate the gospel to people he knows have rejected the light he has given them (Rom 1:18–23) and will also reject the gospel; although he may still send the gospel to them.

Kathy Hochul Begging Rich People To Come Back

Published by Papa Giorgio

2022

  • Just jump on a bus and head down to Florida where you belong, okay? Get out of town. Get out of town. Because you don’t represent our values. You are not New Yorkers. — Kathy Hochul 

2026

TRANSCRIPT

And being conscious of the fact that I need people who are high net worth to support the generous social programs that we want to have in our state.

Right now, there are some patriotic millionaires who stepped up.

OK, cut me the checks.

I mean, just if you want to be supportive, but maybe the first step should be go down to Palm Beach and see who you can bring back home because our tax base has been eroded.

So, I philosophically don’t have a problem.

It is like I have to look at the fact that we are in competition with other states who have less of a tax burden on their corporations and their individuals.

And I would say remote work changed everything.

There are people who could only work in an office in Manhattan and work in New York State, and they were captives to our state.

They were going to stay. We saw that that’s not the case.

I mean, you know, Wall Street businesses looking at Texas. They’re not going there because they have a nicer governor, I know that for sure.

But they’re going there because of the tax rate.

We have to be smart about this. But we can fund what we want to fund with what we already are taking

An Open Letter a 5-Point Church (Introduction Added)

Published by Papa Giorgio

New introduction:

From a comment when I posted this elsewhere:

  • “Don’t be afraid to abandon a point of doctrine that the Bible opposes. Don’t be afraid to go to the *No Opinion* option on a topic the Bible does not address. Don’t be afraid to fight or leave, as God directs, any church or Christian fellowship group that is drawing you away from the Bible as it draws you closer to its members, doctrinal statement, or literature.”

I made this more generic, under advisement that I took to heart. While I shared the letter with many (elders, friends, etc.) so they would know why I disappeared. I am making the public letter less specific.

I love the men I became friends with, most of the teaching… but the stated goals and positions from the pulpit are not really believed. There is “double-talk” going on.

All [A] are [B] but in such a way that some [A] are not [B]

It’s the whole “preach as an Arminian and sleep like a Calvinist” thingy. Even Spurgeon softened on this a bit later in his life*. I did use the initials, but there are 1,500 to 2,000 churches with them.

I love the guys I sit with, but the other day I had to keep my thoughts to myself when they were speaking about the deleterious FX of Satan. I felt like David Attenborough narrating a scene in his calm British accent:

  • “Look at these fine specimens, many not realizing the redundancy of what they are saying regarding the horned one. Through first causes and secondary causes God has already made it impossible at all — video below — to respond to the Gospel. Following to their logical ends a systematized thought is not being taught here… it is as if they think Satan can go to a grave sight and dig up corpses and place blind folds on them.” (2 Corinthians 4:4 – Hat-Tip to Doc Flowers for the graveyard analogy.)

So while I have had a few people genuinely and heart filled try and talk me out of leaving, I would go bonkers trying to respect conversation and not draw it to logical, reasonable ends.

Just to note, I am not Arminian

* This is what I mean by early or late Spurgeon. When he was a young pastor taking over the now famous Park Street Chapel at 19 he would say stuff like, “Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.” [22 years old], or, “A mutable god may be the god for the Arminian—he is not the god for me.” [24 years old]. Later in life, as he matured in his faith, he softened a bit.

At age 28, after having been a shepherd of a flock and rubbing shoulder with people in his congregation for a while, he changed a bit, saying this:

  • There is some truth in Calvinism and some in Arminianism, and he who would hold the whole Truth of God must neither be cramped by the one system nor bound by the other, but take Truth wherever he can find it in the Bible.

When he was 42 in 1876, he noted the long history of “preaching like an Arminian but sleeping as a Calvinist”:

  • There has long been a great doctrinal discussion between the Calvinists and the Arminians upon many important points. I am myself persuaded that the Calvinist alone is right upon some points, and the Arminian alone is right upon others. There is a great deal of truth in the positive side of both systems, and a great deal of error in the negative side of both. If I was asked, “Why is a man damned?” I should answer as an Arminian answers, “He destroys himself.”

Finally, by 1881, when Spurgeon is now 47 years old, he says that he has been called “an Arminian Calvinist or a Calvinistic Arminian” and he does not seem to mind either label:

What a host of revised versions we have! Everybody has one of his own. Certain texts which will not fit into our system must be planed and cut down. Have you ever seen the hard work that some Brethren have to shape a Scripture to their mind? One text is not Calvinistic, it looks rather Arminian—of course it cannot be so and, therefore, they twist and tug to get it right. As for our Arminian Brethren, it is wonderful to see how they hammer away at the 9th Chapter of Romans—steam-hammers and screw-jacks are nothing to their appliances for getting rid of Election from that chapter! We have all been guilty of racking Scripture, more or less, and it will be well to have done with the evil, forever! We had far better be inconsistent with ourselves than with the Inspired Word of God.

I have been called an Arminian Calvinist or a Calvinistic Arminian and I am quite content so long as I can keep close to my Bible. I desire to preach what I find in this Book whether I find it in anybody else’s book or not.

From Cage-stage to “Arminian Calvinist or a Calvinistic Arminian”: Charles Spurgeon’s theological journey (BEYOND CALVINISM)

Dear Church Family,

After much prayer, study, and reflection, I want to share something personal with you. I have decided to begin attending another church whose theological direction more closely aligns with my own convictions—particularly in the area of soteriology.

This has not been a quick or emotional decision. CCC has been home to me for many years, through different seasons, buildings, friendships, and growth. I am deeply grateful for the pastors, elders, and members who have invested in my life. Many of my most meaningful conversations, lessons, and spiritual milestones have happened here. I care deeply for this church and its people, and I will always value the time I’ve spent among you.

Over the past year, I have spent considerable time revisiting the doctrines surrounding salvation—especially divine sovereignty, human responsibility, election, calling, and assurance. As I have listened carefully to the direction of recent teaching and re-examined my own convictions in light of Scripture and church history, I’ve come to recognize that my theological understanding is no longer fully aligned with the trajectory of CCC.

More specifically, I hold to the conviction that God genuinely desires all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9), that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for and sincerely offered to all (John 3:16–17), and that individuals are truly responsible for accepting or rejecting the gospel (John 1:12; Romans 10:9–13). I understand these invitations as reflecting a real capacity to respond—not merely an outward call accompanied only by an inward, effectual call for some.

In wrestling through these matters, I have reflected on the distinction often made between God’s revealed will—what He commands and expresses in Scripture—and His decretive or secret will—what He ordains in His eternal purposes. My concern is that when emphasis shifts too heavily toward the hidden decree of God, it can overshadow the plain force of His revealed invitations and commands. The universal call of the gospel can begin to feel less like a genuine appeal to all and more like a formal proclamation intended only for those already determined to respond.

For me, it is essential to maintain that the gospel call truly applies to all who hear it, that faith in Jesus’ promises is the responsibility of every sinner, that Christ is sincerely offered to all without qualification, that God displays real common grace toward the world, and that His love extends in a meaningful way even to those who ultimately reject Him. While I am not suggesting that CCC embraces what is commonly labeled hyper-Calvinism, I do find myself increasingly concerned when theological formulations appear to narrow the scope of the gospel’s free and universal offer.

While I affirm God’s sovereignty in salvation, I do not believe Scripture teaches that God unconditionally determines who will believe and who will not, nor that His decree stands as the ultimate explanation for unbelief. As A.W. Tozer eloquently states:

Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, What doest thou? Mans will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.

I struggle with formulations that make divine determinism the governing framework—particularly when they risk portraying God as causally ordaining evil (1, 2, 3) or withholding saving grace from those whom He commands to repent.

Additionally, I am persuaded that assurance of salvation ultimately rests in Christ’s finished work and the promise of the gospel, rather than primarily in evaluating the consistency or degree of one’s perseverance. Good works are the fruit of genuine faith, but they are not the foundation of our confidence before God.

I want to say clearly: this decision is not about questioning anyone’s faith, sincerity, or love for the Lord. Faithful believers have long differed on these matters, and I do not doubt that God is at work wherever the gospel is proclaimed. My departure is not a declaration that others are unbiblical or insincere. Rather, it is an acknowledgment that convictions about the character of God and the nature of the gospel are not peripheral—they shape how we preach, invite, disciple, and offer hope.

One of the moments that clarified this for me was realizing that I hesitated to invite an unbelieving young man to CCC —not because of the people here, whom I love, but because I felt I might need to explain or reconcile theological distinctions that, in my understanding, complicate the straightforward and universal nature of the gospel invitation in Scripture. That tension made me recognize it would be more honest and spiritually healthy for me to worship and serve in a church where my convictions are fully aligned with the pulpit, and where I can invite others with complete clarity and confidence.

Please know this decision comes with affection, not frustration. I am thankful for the friendships we’ve built and the ways we’ve sharpened one another. I have no desire for division—only integrity in following my conscience as I seek to grow in Christ.

I leave with gratitude and with prayers for continued faithfulness, unity, and fruitfulness at CCC. I hope our relationships will continue, even as I worship elsewhere.

With appreciation and brotherly love,

Sean G

Illegal Immigrant with 40+ Arrests Murders a Fairfax County Mother

Published by Papa Giorgio

Virginia Democrats are under fire after a violent illegal immigrant with more than 40 arrests allegedly murdered a Fairfax County mother, and then tried to shift blame to Donald Trump and ICE. This breakdown exposes the sanctuary-style policies, judicial warrant deception, ICE detainer fight, and shocking media silence surrounding Stephanie Minter’s death. A devastating look at immigration enforcement, crime, and political accountability in Virginia. (More at TOWNHALL)

FOX NEWS has some more:

…. Emails obtained by FOX DC showed the Fairfax County Police Department (FCPD) warned Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney Steve Descano’s office about Jalloh on at least three occasions, but no action was taken to remove him from the country.

In an email to Fairfax County Chief Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Jenna Sands, a Fairfax County police major said he wanted to bring Jalloh’s release to her attention because he “is one of the repeat (and violent) offenders” they had previously discussed.

“I wanted to get your background on why he is out so soon and ask if his prior suspended sentence (of I believe 5 years) was pursued by your office? Unfortunately, based on MTV Station’s numerous dealings with him, it is not a question of if, but rather when he will maliciously wound (or worse) again. My role of keeping the public safe, prompts me to follow up on his status,” the major wrote.

In another email discussing a bond alert from August 2025, a FCPD employee told Assistant Police Chief Brooke Wright that Jalloh had more than 100 incidents with FCPD resulting in multiple charges spanning from theft to violent crimes, according to the outlet.

“JALLOH’s offenses began with domestic violence incidents and escalated to assaulting other victims and threats with weapons (knives),” the employee wrote in the email. “He has been involved in multiple stabbing incidents with victims identifying him as the offender in these cases. This year JALLOH has been the offender in a malicious wounding where he stabbed a man in May 2025, in which he received a bond on July 31, 2025 — three weeks later, this incident occurred where he assaulted an older male and stomped his head into the ground.”

The employee added a list of Jalloh’s criminal history to the email, which included:

2014: Assault on family member (nolle prossed)

2015: Assault on family member (nolle prossed)

2017: ID theft to avoid arrest (guilty)

2017: Assault (guilty)

2018: Possession of marijuana (guilty)

2018: Destruction of property (guilty) — Original charge: malicious shoot/throw occupied building

2018: Contributing to the delinquency of a minor (nolle prossed)

2018: Rape (nolle prossed)

2018: Grand larceny (nolle prossed)

2022: Trespassing (nolle prossed)

2023: Trespassing (guilty)

2023: Disorderly conduct (guilty)

2023: Possession of a schedule three substance (guilty) — Original charge: possession of a schedule one or two substance

2023: Malicious wounding (nolle prossed)

2023: Malicious wounding (guilty) — Sentenced to seven years, with five years suspended to probation

2023: Stealing property from a person (nolle prossed)

2024: Petit larceny (nolle prossed)

2024: Trespassing (nolle prossed)

2024: Petit larceny (nolle prossed)

2024: Disorderly conduct (nolle prossed)

2024: Malicious wounding (nolle prossed)

2024: Failure to appear in court (dismissed)

2025: Malicious wounding

[….]

The email also said police had a record of 178 incidents, citing Jalloh as a known shoplifter and noting he “is often intoxicated/high and located w/narcotics on his person.”

“DANGER This individual has a long history of stabbing community members and is currently on probation for doing that very thing,” the officer wrote. “He has shown a blatant disregard for human life and is a danger to the community.”

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Fairfax County Police Chief Kevin Davis said his department “respect[s] the criminal justice system and the distinct roles and responsibilities of each entity within it.”

“In previous cases involving this defendant, our officers and detectives conducted thorough investigations, made lawful arrests, and presented evidence for prosecution,” Davis wrote. “The court outcomes are in no way related to any shortcomings associated with the FCPD. This defendant must be held accountable for his actions. We remain committed to our role to ensure that happens.”  ….