It would seem that grace perfecting nature, between proto-Babylon’s attempt to subvert God’s order with nations, in Genesis 10-11, and the call to come out of archetypal-final Babylon in Revelation 18, requires a distinctly Protestant view of the church.

The incompatibility of Romanism and sovereign nations is becoming increasingly apparent.

Pope cope.

Crusades literally crying out to be restarted, chance to actually make history, and you and the Orange Man still dishing out bread and circuses to the boomers. You have earned the quadruple🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡

.@irishpresby on Christian politics & the spirituality of the church.

.@PerfInjust on the method of Christian politics.

.@ZacharyGarris on the true views of the 1788 American Revisers of the WCF.

To be deep in one’s own nation is to cease to be Romanist. — (Probably not) John Henry Newman

Since those who refuse to grow up, but have social media accounts, tried to shame everyone with their suicidal empathy over the events of Belfast, three more Muslim stabbings have occurred in Italy, Japan, and again in the UK. Your opinions are forever discarded. Your worldview is being rejected by the young, mercifully. Mercy to the wolf is cruelty to the sheep. You will confuse gospel with law, the keys with the sword, prudence with cowardice, no more.

It’s all happening.

Rutherford echoing Aquinas in showing the link between the rule of law (participation in eternal law) and discerning when there is sufficient privation from that law. “It is no power which is not lawful power ... When the magistrate doth anything by violence, and without law, in so far doing against his office, he is not a magistrate. Then, say I, that power by which he doth, is not of God. None doth, then, resist the ordinance of God who resist the king in tyrannous acts.” Lex, Rex, Q22 [102, 103] Bet you didn't think there was a connection between metaphysical realism and resistance theory 😉

Rutherford gives three arguments that the power of the magistrate is not absolute or unlimited. “Arg. 1.—He who, in his first institution, is appointed of God by office, even when he sitteth on the throne, to take heed to read on a written copy of God’s law, that he may ‘learn to fear the Lord his God, and keep all the words of this law’ … Arg. 2.—The power that the king hath (I speak not of his gifts) he hath it from the people who maketh him king, as I proved before: but the people have neither formally nor virtually any power absolute to give the king … Arg. 3.—All royal power, whereby a king is a king and differenced from a private man, armed with no power of the sword, is from God. But absolute power to tyrannise over the people and to destroy them is not a power from God; therefore there is not any such royal power absolute.” Why, then, Rutherford, do people say that the king is a living law? First, “because men are averse to good laws, therefore there was need of a ruler,” namely to compel. Second, the law per se is “the reason or mind, free from all perturbations of anger, lust, hatred, and cannot be tempted to ill,” so that the king “cometh by office out of himself to reason and law.” Third, “Justice is more perfect than a just man … so the nearer the king comes to a law, for the which he is a king, the nearer to a king.” Lex, Rex, Q22 [101-102]

I’ve always thought the best way to be properly catholic and ignore the ramblings of the antichrist, as he plots to unleash millions of orcs upon the shire, is just to keep being Protestant.

GM—If you stop pressing, this girl is going to come back out to remind you that you’re not a man.

Rutherford on lesser magistrates rising up if a government should be bribed to bring in a foreign army to harm its own citizens, even a jihadist horde. “If the king should sell his country, and bring in a foreign army, the estates are to convene, to take course for the safety of the kingdom.” But “to royalists, who make the king’s power absolute, all acts are so just to the subject, though he command idolatry and Mohammedanism, that we are to suffer only, and not to resist.” Lex, Rex, Q21, 22 [97, 101]

Rutherford on the right to resist and overthrow tyrannical governments. “When the supreme magistrate will not execute the judgment of the Lord, those who made him supreme magistrate, under God, who have, under God, sovereign liberty to dispose of crowns and kingdoms, are to execute the judgment of the Lord, when wicked men make the law of God of none effect.” Lex, Rex, Q22 [96]

Rutherford on the equality in authority between the lesser magistrate and the king, or president, etc. of a larger territory. “Court flatterers take from God and give to kings; but to be a judge inferior is no less an immediate favor of God than to be king, though the one be a greater favor than the other … That the powers are the same in nature, I prove, 1. By the specific acts and formal object of the power of both; for both are powers ordained of God (Rom. xiii.1.) To resist either, is to resist the ordinance of God. 2. Both are by office a terror to evil workers, ver. 3. 3. Both are the ministers of God for good … Let any man show me a difference, according to God’s word, but in the extension, that what the king is to do as a king, in all the kingdom and whole dominions … that the inferior judges are to do in such and such circuits, and limited places, and I quit the cause; so as the inferior judges are little kings, and the king a great and delated judge,—as a compressed hand or fist, and the hand stretched out in fingers and thumb, are one hand; so here.” Lex, Rex, Q20 [91, 92]

Always remember when they say the quiet part out loud. This was during the last year of the Biden administration. As we have said, the majority are from the NON-Western hemisphere: shipped over, paid for, housed, all along the trek up Central America by our government. This is not incompetence. This is not even economic in the end. These are soldiers, and Western governments are the generals.

One of the lowest forms of the part to whole fallacy is: Premise. This thing that x person or persons did in y war is not right. Conclusion. Therefore, this war is unjust. By this same logic, no war on the ordinary plain of history was ever just. So, to conceal both that inconvenience and the hasty generalization, the fallacy of equivocation will be added by using many other terms besides war. Take this with you in the coming days.

People noticing things I've been saying for thirty years. Keep pushing the mind. What's that next inference? Are these legitimate nation-states, or ... what? Use your own prior logic. What would you normally call this?