Liberation Theology is back as Pope Francis holds Capitalism to account

The TELEGRAPH - January 8, 2014

Amid accusations of Marxism, Pope Francis has turned the Vatican into the spearhead of radical economic thinking.

Unfettered global capitalism has met its match at last. Ever since Bishop Bergoglio picked St Francis of Assisi to be his guiding inspiration and lead a "church for the poor", all his actions have been in the same direction.

Liberation Theology is taking over the Vatican a quarter of a century after John-Paul II systematically sought to stamp out the "singular heresy" in the radical parishes and dioceses of Latin America, a task carried out with dutiful efficiency by Cardinal Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Click to read more ....

NOTR: Why would a Jesuit pope promote Marxism?  Historic background: It was the Jesuits who are credited with engineering Communist philosophy through their Reductions of Paraguay in the 17th and 18th centuries.  The phrase "Social Justice" was first coined in 1843 by a Jesuit priest named Luigi Taparelli -- five years before Marx published The Communist Manifesto (1848).  In 1881, Protestant historian J.A. Wylie wrote of how the Jesuits used Communism as a tool of manipulation against countries to force them into obedience to Rome (see: "The Jesuits, their Moral Maxims & Plots Against Kings, Nations, and Churches").

In particular, Wylie wrote: "... the Jesuits, in the end of the day, will make common cause with Communism, and will use this new-sprung force to wreak their vengeance on those Governments which have lifted up the heel against their liege lord, and obstinately refuse to return to their obedience to a ruler who claims to be the moral and political sovereign of all Christendom, the king of all its kings." (Wylie, pp. 102,103)  For further information, see the book "Ecclesiastical Megalomania," in which author John W. Robbins documents the manifestation of Marxist philosophies in the political and economic thought of the Church of Rome. 

Hickory, Dickory, Dockery: Ecumenism in the SBC

By KEN FRYER

On December 9, 2013, David Dockery, President of Union University in Jackson, Tennessee announced his intention to step down from the presidency and assume the role of chancellor (in an honorary role) no later than July 2014.  In his farewell address, Dockery said that he intends to participate more in the Manhattan Declaration project which purports to be a movement of Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians for life, marriage, and religious liberty.  Upon the issuance of the Manhattan Declaration, many religious leaders, including many high-profile Southern Baptists, were asked to sign the document.  Besides Dockery, other notable Southern Baptist signatories include the ultra-ecumenical Timothy George, Dean of the Beeson School of Divinity and, of course, the Pope-praising Russell Moore, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Click to read more ...

A Response to Turretinfan

By NOTR

A commentary surfaced on the Alpha & Omega website written by someone calling himself “Turretinfan.”  It is a short review of the debate between Chris Pinto and James White on December 11, 2013.  The reviewer obviously favors White and desired to defend his side of the argument. 

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2013/12/17/chris-pinto-debate-summary-turretinfan/

Before we answer his commentary, we should mention that the writer in question has chosen his code name from Francis Turretin, a well known seventeenth century, Swiss Reformed theologian.  Turretin is perhaps best known for his teaching that the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist prophesied in Scripture.  His Seventh Disputation was titled, Whether it can be Proven the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist.  In short, he definitely thought it could be proven.   Within this context, the original Turretin wrote:

“… the Pope reigns in the Church in order to destroy and attack the Church itself.”

Click to read more ...

What do the Multiple Version Men leave us With?

By Kent Brandenburg

If I were to rank the recent stir-ups that related to the Bible, as to national interest, they would be the following:  (1)  Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson's homosexuality comments, (2)  John MacArthur's Strange Fire Conference, (3)  NCFIC Holy Hip-Hop panel discussion, and (4)  Mark Driscoll charged with plagiarism for several of his books.  If I were to rank a number five, it is the hub-bub over the documentary by Chris Pinto that questioned the veracity of Tischendorf's Sinaiticus Greek New Testament manuscript.  This included comments from Dan Wallace, a debate between Pinto and James White, several blog posts attacking Pinto from various sources, and a lot of mileage in discussion forum debate.  Why did this number five create such a furor?

Click to read more ...

Collation, Confusion & Erasmus

By Christian J. Pinto

“I have escaped at last from the prisonhouse of Basel, in which I have done six years’ work in eight months.” 

-- Desiderius Erasmus in a letter to Rimaclus, 1516

We have seen several comments from a few who listened to the debate last week, and were understandably confused by one of the points argued by James White.  The polemic he latched on to at one point was the insistence that Constantine Simonides and his uncle would not have had time to “collate” the various manuscripts necessary to have produced the Codex Sinaiticus in 1840.  Hearing that, some people assumed that Dr. White must know what he’s talking about.  But did he?

 On our Adullam Films facebook page, one listener wrote: “... White won the debate at the word ‘collate.’”

Upon questioning this person further, it became clear that he didn’t really understand what the collation process is, and how the variables involved make it impossible to draw a finite conclusion.   When pressed further, he said of Dr. White: “… he’s the expert in those matters, so I trust his authority in that regard.”

We wrote him back and told him:

“... White did, in fact, end the debate with the word ‘collate’ as you said – because at that point, he revealed that he had no legitimate arguments against the story of Simonides.”

Click to read more ...