Within minutes, Liberal commentators accused Putin of propagandizing with a “revisionist history.”
Well, of course! All historians are revisionists. All politicians and news commentators are propagandists. At one point, Putin pointed out that American media are such masters of propaganda that he could hardly compete. It is most odd for Americans to hear a statesman who is a historian. All should be, but modernism hates history.
In a nutshell, Putin said that there was originally one people, the eastern Slavs, ruled over by the Rurik dynasty that were Scandinavians. But after the 1300s, it got very complicated because the principalities were divided among princes. Then the Mongolian Tatars invaded from the east and south while the Polish-Lithuanian Empire took advantage of this weakness and invaded from the west. Different regions had various levels of autonomy. Some just paid a tribute to their eastern rulers and carried on trading with them.
That is an oversimplification of a complex history of course. But it is accurate.
Even the Lithuanians spoke a language similar to eastern Slavic — which came from Balto-Slavic. Gradually the northern principalities consolidated around Vladimir and then Moscow. They created cities ringed with multiple walls and built those cities into a Golden Ring. In the far flung regions, the Slavs spoke different dialects that came from Old Slavic (or Slavonic). In the southern regions dominated by Byzantium people spoke Greek. Ethnic groups arose on the bordering regions that spoke Turkic dialects from the eastern Tatars.
I wrote an article on this in 1991. It matches Putin’s version. It is called the Providential History of Russia. I didn’t get it from Russian propaganda. I got it out of English language history textbooks. I also made a short video of this article.
What I’ve described above is very similar to the history of all of Europe and most of the civilized world in the Middle Ages.
There was no one German language, no one Spanish language, no one English language, no one Italian language. There were dialects among folk groups. There were no “countries,” but empires, kingdoms and smaller principalities within those regions. Within a civilization some groups spoke foreign languages that influenced the common tongue. In many regions, it was this way up until the 20th century. Then autocratic rulers and public education systems devised programs to standardize the language, spelling and alphabets of national languages. This unified regional kingdoms into modern nation-states.
Up to this point, if you spoke a common dialect you were of that tribe. If you spoke the common national language you were of that nation. But in the Middle Ages, there was no such thing as what we think of as countries or nation-states.
What united Europe throughout history was not language, but Christianity. Roman Catholicism and (later) Reformed Protestantism in the west; and Greek Catholicism and Greek Orthodox Christianity in the east.
Nation-states by the 20th century were based on ideologies, “Whose side are you on? Are you a nationalist, a liberal democrat, or a communist?”
Now in 2024, those ideological distinctions are disappearing worldwide. Now it is, “Who are we as a people?”
Populism is rising. Ideology driven politics is declining. We are back where we started.
Putin outlined a vision in which all who speak an eastern Slavic language are Russians.
They are part of historic Rus and the Russian Orthodox culture. If you want to be something else you can be that. No problem. It has always been that way. But you can’t use nationalism and violent militias to force others within our Russian world to be that way too.
In some ways, in trying to become modern, we’ve become barbarians. In trying to be Liberal, we’ve become more brutal in forcing others to be free like us.
Our leaders say, “Those barbarians, those subhumans hate us because they hate our way of life because we love freedom. They are bad actors, pariah states. They are isolated from humanity. We’ve got to bomb them off the face of the map.”
Literally, they say that.
I liked how Putin stressed how European borders were drawn around countries sometimes by two or three leaders after World Wars. Lands were taken, genocides of peoples in the regions were committed, and political ideologies were enforced. All this was done sometimes in a closed meeting between a Churchill, a Stalin and a Roosevelt — or whichever alliance won a war. This is how maps of Europe were drawn since the 1600s.
Today, people living within a nation-state in Europe still haven’t given up on their national identities because they are based on a thousand years of history.
Now Putin is saying that the world is changing. The power is shifting from the Liberal nations to the rest of the world. Civilizations are aligning according to more organic processes as they were since ancient times. To Putin, Russia is ancient Kievan Rus. That is the root of their culture and civilization.
Some may not agree, but this is the way it was and the way it is going to be. We need to be realists about the situation.
If you speak that language, you are part of that tribe. This is the way it has always been. Putin tells a story about the earlier Donbass conflict, when a militia troop of Russians in Donbass had a Ukrainian militia troop surrounded. The Russians said, “Surrender! You are surrounded!” The other militia troop said, “Never! Russians never surrender!” And they were destroyed by their Russian brothers.
So to speak of a Ukrainian a “nation” — we are speaking of an ethno-linguistic group that has the right to exist and the right to self-determination. Ukraine was never a political nation-state until 1991. They have a right to stay that way as a political union based on an ethnolinguistic group, just as Israel has a right to exist, just as Armenia has a right to exist. And so on. What Ukrainians don’t have a right to do is suppress ethnic minorities, such as Russians and Hungarians, and prohibit them from their right to self-determination.
Any view of the Ukraine conflict of February 2022 onward that does not take into account the civil war in Donbass, and the long history of Kievan Rus since the 800s, is dishonest and hypocritical. The Russian people in this region don’t want to be “liberated” by Ukraine and NATO. They won’t be. As Putin says, “This is impossible.” Western leaders need to accept this reality.
This will become an issue in our own “nation” as secession movements inevitably arise in the future. Is Miami Cuban? Is southern California Mexican. Is Western Canada American?
Is any of that a bad thing?
Is Russian history something that everybody in the West knows, or is this an unknown area? If not, the why do the Liberal legacy media say Putin’s version is “revisionist”? I don’t see any errors in his account. Do they think people won’t fact check the fact checkers?
I thought it was funny in a way because I was explaining this almost exactly in the same way to someone last summer. This person was getting increasingly annoyed. I was telling him about the history of Ukraine and how pieces of other countries were added to it. And also how the Euromaidan resulted in a civil war for eight years, the Minsk agreements, then the treaty signed in Turkey in 2022, and so on. He had never heard of any of that, but had been reading about the war every day in the New York Times.
There are two different views.
One is that Russia is just this aggressive bear that wants to devour other countries for no other reason except it’s run by an evil dictator.
The other view is that it’s actually the United States that is the aggressor all over the world, and wants to use NATO to weaken Russia, not directly through military force, but through sanctions in order to topple the conservative government, then place someone who is more malleable and will allow Russia’s resources to be exploited by western entities such in a way that its economy doesn’t rise. That’s exactly what has happened to Ukraine over the years.
This latter view exposes the criminal behavior of the West, but that’s the view that most people in the world outside the West think is most true. There are two different views. The Western view uses lies of omission.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, I defended the US Middle East wars because I thought that these countries were sponsors of terrorism. But now I even realize that there are two sides to that as well.
Most of the Middle East wars had to do with the petrodollar and keeping Saudi Arabia as the one country that produces the most oil and holds a large portion of the US dollar world currency reserve.
I explain to people how the petrodollar actually works and most people are completely unaware of this. I knew bits and pieces of it before, but I was not really able to connect all the dots until the last couple of years.
Putin understands completely how the US and western economy works, and why it’s failing.
The best books to read on this are Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order by Ray Dalio. Then The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order? by Samuel P Huntington. And of course, The Fourth Political Theory by Aleksandr Dugin.
These authors coming from different perspectives, economic, sociological, and philosophical, but each one of them understands that the world is changing. And they just take a realist approach. They’re interested in understanding why these conflicts are occurring, not just condemning the other side.
Putin holds exactly the same view. He says that this is something that is occurring worldwide. The global order is shifting away from modernist nation-states toward a multipolar world order of civilization states. It has never been possible for one nation to dominate the entire globe. They may do that in their sphere, but no culture can force others to be exactly like them. Therefore, the world will always be multipolar. Balance is a force of nature. It’s inevitable. And we couldn’t stop it if we tried. In fact, the more we try the worse we make it for ourselves.
]]>Within minutes, Liberal commentators accused Putin of propagandizing with a “revisionist history.”
]]>Great men are sometimes known by their first and last names plus their initials or middle names. This distinguishes them from other great men. We need to distinguish John Quincy Adams from John Adams, Martin Luther King from Martin Luther. However, truly greats are sometimes just known by their first names — Alexander, Leonardo, Napoleon — even though there are others with the same first name. They alone lay claim to the moniker. Everyone knows who you are referring to.
Tucker is a truly great journalist.
Tucker has been fired from virtually every major news network where he had his own show, MSNBC, PBS, CNN, and most recently Fox News. This occurred because he went against the political slant of his home network. Efforts to disparage his name as “someone fired from Fox News” are hypocritical. Ignoring the fact that these pundits also hate Fox News, the real motivation for their hate is that he hosted what was by far the most popular news show in the world.
Everyone knows Tucker was fired for going against the grain of neoconservative politics. He took several stances that went against Fox News’ owners, the Murdock family’s political positions. He was given free reign to do so at first because he gained a reputation as someone who was not afraid to tell the truth as he saw it, no matter how uncomfortable it made his viewers. This frankness caused people to listen and his refreshing honesty shaped public opinion.
Tucker sought to interview Russian president Vladimir Putin in 2021, but he claims his personal email was hacked by the US government and they worked to prevent him.
When the US Congress refused to audit or account for any of the military aid flowing into Ukraine, Tucker was hellbent on exposing the corruption and collusion between American corporations and Ukrainian oligarchs and politicians. Tucker was fired during the same week that Blackrock signed a deal in Kyiv buying the rights to rebuild Ukraine on the backs of the US taxpayers after the war. Not coincidentally, Blackrock also owns more than 15 percent of Fox News. (See: Blackrock is taking over Ukraine.)
The design was to silence Tucker by cancelling his show and keeping him on payroll until after the 2024 elections. The Murdochs thought he would fade into obscurity by that time, much like Fox’s former king of neoconservative primetime advocacy journalism, Bill O’Reilly. Once that predictable plan became obvious, the muzzling fell by the wayside.
Now that Tucker is breaking the monopoly of the one-sided legacy news media, they are absolutely apoplectic. There are even Liberals in the European Union who are seeking to enact government sanctions on him. This is nothing new. Aleksandr Dugin, Russia’s most prominent living philosopher, was sanctioned by the US government. In a nation that supposedly has a free press, you cannot find Dugin’s books on any major bookseller’s website, not Amazon, not Barnes & Noble, not even Books-a-Million. Tucker did a segment on Dugin for Fox News and was told by an Amazon representative that the US government had sent them a list of sanctioned authors.
I did not like Tucker at all a few years ago. He seemed to change from a neoliberal to a neoconservative depending on which network he was on. I noticed something more fundamental changed in 2022 when he began to speak on the Ukraine conflict. As a frequent traveler to both Russia and Ukraine since 1991, I have long been exasperated by the media spin on the former Soviet Republics. Virtually nothing that is reported is correct by means of omission. We get a partial story or a caricature of reality. Granted, international affairs are complex and need to be dumbed down just enough for the average American with an eighth grade reading level will understand in soundbites. Of course, it isn’t only geopolitics that is treated this way.
I applaud Tucker for exposing stories to a mass audience that most will hear nowhere else — even when I don’t agree with everything he says.
The unpardonable sin was committed when Tucker interviewed Colonel Douglas MacGregor several times. MacGregor was previously one of the few voices who testified to the US Congress that the claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were unfounded. Trump had even brought MacGregor into the White House as an advisor in the administration’s final months to devise a plan to get the US out of Afghanistan in orderly manner. Unfortunately, it was determined that the plan could not be implemented safely in the time Trump had left. History shows us that the fiasco of yet another failed war came a few months later when the Biden administration showed their incompetence. Not only does this country not know how to win a major war, we don’t know an honorable way to lose one either.
That is truly frightening.
MacGregor shockingly contradicted the universally agreed to narrative that the war was going well for Ukraine and therefore US citizens ought to support Zelenskyy with over a hundred billion dollars in military aid. He exposed the truth that Zelenskyy is a mere puppet controlled by the military-industrial-congressional complex and his own country’s oligarchs. Such statements were a bombshell to Fox’s neoconservative audience and owners. Tucker went on to expose the collusion of the major news outlets with the Pentagon and US State Department.
What I find so hypocritical about the legacy media was exemplified by their reaction. When Tucker said that he is the only journalist who has bothered to try to interview Putin, numerous pundits threw a tantrum and claimed it’s all a big lie because they get turned down all the time by the Kremlin for interview requests. Then they went on a tirade claiming that Tucker is doing the bidding of the Kremlin, he’s a Putin stooge, a lover of dictators, and so on.
The point Tucker was making is that none of the journalists who interviewed Volodymyr Zelenskyy ever asked any hard questions, but rather promoted him so he could get hundreds of billions of your money (that is, your children’s future money) for a war that is impossible for Ukraine to win. This is a war that is killing hundreds of thousands of people. No one asks Zelensky about that.
As Hamlet asks Ophelia, who is unwittingly part of his murderous uncle, King Claudius’ plot to remove Hamlet from the line of succession, “if you be honest and fair, your honesty should / admit no discourse to your beauty” (Hamlet 3.1.108-109) If the legacy outlets were “honest and fair,” they would have less regard for maintaining their pretense of political correctness, than for the importance of telling the truth. Their truth would come from their honesty and beauty. But being neither honest nor beautiful, they are strangers to the truth.
Tucker is the only Western journalist in over two years allowed to interview Putin precisely because he is honest and fair. He will ask tough questions. He won’t lie, take things out of context, omit context, or propagandize. It is not in his nature to do that.
The response?
The Ukrainian government’s secret service — the SBU — put him on their kill list — Myrotvorets.
This is a site where Ukraine lists its enemies and crosses out their names once they have been assassinated by the SBU.
Aleksandr Dugin’s daughter, Daria Dugina, was assassinated by the SBU.
Gonzalo Lira, an American journalist, film maker and writer living in Ukraine, was arrested and killed in jail while awaiting trial for bogus charges of supporting Russia.
Both appeared on the Myrotvorets list before they were killed.
Tucker let the US government and their media lapdogs make his point for him. The US government can require Ukraine to take down the website. Our government will censor a Russian philosopher and sanction their sports stars, journalists and artists, but we won’t push the Zelenskyy regime to see that the FSB does not murder civilians and encourage the killing of hundreds of others.
That is truly frightening.
Hopefully, Tucker will raise topics most Western media won’t touch. I will write a follow-up analysis after I see the interview.
]]>Although tradition does not rule our interpretation, it does guide it. If upon reading a particular passage you have come up with an interpretation that has escaped the notice of every other Christian for two thousand years, or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, chances are pretty good that you had better abandon your interpretation (R.C. Sproul, The Agony of Deceit, 34-35).
Scripture alone, sola Scriptura, is not the same as Scripture only, solo Scriptura.1 To put it in other terms, to say that Scripture alone is the only rule of faith and practice – or as the Westminster Catechism says, “is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him” – is quite different than to say that only Scripture is the guide to all truth.
Truth may be derived outside the Bible. Romans 1 expressly affirms this truth. Not only does natural revelation of truth exist, it is the only thing that exists. All creation declares the glory of God. The problem is not with extra-biblical truth. The problem is within man’s own heart and mind. Due to our radical moral corruption, we will always distort this truth to our own selfish ends. This is why special revelation is needed. That special revelation begins and ends with the written Word of God alone – sola Scriptura.
In contrast, solo Scriptura begins in a place that seems synonymous with sola Scriptura, but ends up the rule of Scripture by an individual’s interpretation, which is the opposite conclusion.
Solo Scriptura advocates a radical individualism that rejects the church, creeds, confessions, and tradition as having any authority while embracing private judgment above all else. This view radicalizes the Protestant ethic and undermines it. Such an approach finds no credence in the teaching of the Reformers or the early church. Conversely, the Reformers taught the Apostles’ Creed and stood upon the truths articulated at Chalcedon and Nicaea. Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Henry Bullinger, and Martin Bucer all wrote catechisms and confessions for their people. They viewed an anti-creedal and anti-confessional theology as anti-Christian. None of the prominent Protestant Reformers advocated solo Scriptura (Jason Helopoulos, “Is Scripture Alone the Same Thing as Scripture Only?” tabletalkmagazine.com).
The Reformers held to sola Scriptura, not solo Scriptura. When we say that Scripture alone is the rule of all faith and practice in matters of salvation, then special attention has to be paid to the word, “rule,” which is distinct from “guide.” This does not say that Church Fathers, Apologists, Church Councils and theologians throughout history have not guided biblical interpretation. It also does not claim that they erred on the essential doctrines of the faith. Instead, the following points ought to be affirmed.
1. Scripture alone is the source of the rule of faith; the rule of faith did not determine the canon of the Bible or truths derived from the Bible.
2. Truth existed independently, even prior to the special revelation of the Word of God being given. But because of man’s depravity, special revelation is needed and can be the only standard of truth.
3. Since Scripture determined the rule of faith, Scripture sits in judgment over our doctrines and traditions — never the other way around.
4. The Bible alone is inerrant and infallible.
5. The Bible alone is the Word of God.
Do Catholics deny sola Scriptura?
The Roman Catholic Church actually affirms (or at least comes close to affirming) the above definition of sola Scriptura in a document issued in 1965 called Dei Verbum (“The Word of God”)
Through divine revelation, God chose to show forth and communicate Himself and the eternal decisions of His will regarding the salvation of men. That is to say, He chose to share with them those divine treasures which totally transcend the understanding of the human mind.
As a sacred synod has affirmed, God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certainty from created reality by the light of human reason (see Romans 1:20); but teaches that it is through His revelation that those religious truths which are by their nature accessible to human reason can be known by all men with ease, with solid certitude and with no trace of error, even in this present state of the human race….
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.
Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Timothy 3:16,17) [emphasis mine].
The Bible alone is the standard of truth and for refuting error. Scripture is the supreme authority over the Church. However, Scripture is not the only authority. Luther, Calvin, and the other Reformers used other authorities and Church tradition in addition to their own reasoning. They recognized that man’s rational counsel can at best correctly affirm the Word of God, but can never be above it. Rationalism can never be the standard by which we judge or interpret the Word of God. The train of authority is first the Word of God, then correct doctrine and practice.
The idea of sola Scriptura is closely bound up in the idea of biblical inerrancy.
I recently heard that an official of a certain Protestant denomination feared that his church was becoming more liberal because they no longer believed in inerrancy. He related that they changed their confession to say that the Bible was not “inerrant,” but merely “infallible.” The irony here is that “infallible” is actually a stronger word. Some of what I say is inerrant, but nothing I can say is infallible. That is, I can make a statement without a mistake, but in no way am I free from the ability to make a mistake. The same holds true for the men who wrote Scripture. They were flawed men who were limited in their understanding, but under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they were kept free from error. Scripture was in part the initiative of the authors’ will and personality, but the words are inerrant simply because the Holy Spirit kept them from error in communicating sacred truth.
Infallibility can never be achieved with a man’s interpretation of Scripture. The interpretation might be without error, but no one is infallible or incapable of error. Scripture alone is inerrant, not the men who wrote it and not the men who interpret it. This raises an obvious paradox. Since we have the Word of God in written form, it must still be read and understood by fallible men. The traditions of those men then become an authority that we appeal to.
As John Calvin put it, “We hold that the Word of God alone lies beyond the sphere of our judgment… Fathers and Councils are of authority only in so far as they accord with the rule of the Word.”
And who decides whether something the Fathers or the Councils have determined “accords with the rule of the Word”?
Who determines this?
What is it that keeps our understanding from error?
Is it the pope sitting in the chair of Peter issuing ex cathedra statements?
Is it a council of bishops issuing a canon of enumerated truths?
Is it the consensus view of a majority of Church Fathers throughout history?
The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view holds it must be one of these things. In essence, if you have an infallible book, you must also have an infallible interpreter to be sure truth is communicated.
If it is not a pope or a church council, then why you?
The answer is simple. Protestants don’t say that our understanding is without error. In some ways, we will always be in error. Rather, inerrancy rests with the authority of the Holy Spirit that established Scripture itself, not mixing it with other things. At best, Church tradition is an interpretive tool that at times can affirm a Scriptural point of doctrine without error. Tradition is a necessary source of truth.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle (2 Thessalonians 2:15).
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us (2 Thessalonians 3:6).
Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us (2 Timothy 1:13-14).
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers (1 Peter 1:18).
Critics of the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura will often rightly point out that the “tradition” spoken of here went beyond the written words of Scripture. However, Scripture alone is always inerrant. The tradition of religious people sometimes is in error.
And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition (Matthew 15:6)
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye (Mark 7:13).
And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers (Galatians 1:14).
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ ( Colossians 2:8, all emphasis above mine).
Tradition does not stand as an equal to Scripture in its comprehensive authority. All the Truth necessary for salvation is not contained partly in Scripture and partly in tradition. To claim that would violate uniqueness and sufficiency of Scripture. There is such a thing as the necessity of human reason in understanding truth, but there is no such thing as the sufficiency of human reason.
Sola Scriptura, Inspiration and Inerrancy
Sola Scriptura means that the writers of Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit to communicate truth without error, such that the words of Scripture are both inspired and inerrant. To understand the Protestant view on this, it is useful to look at the idea of inspiration. Both the authors and words of Scripture are inspired. The authors of Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit as they wrote. The actual words of Scripture continue to carry the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and this is the way that truth is communicated as we read it. While the authors of Scripture might have made errors in doctrine throughout their lives, they were kept from error by the Holy Spirit as they wrote Scripture. Therefore, all the ideas of Scripture, as well as the individual words, are there because the Holy Spirit intended them to be recorded.
Truth is wholly derived from Scripture. Scripture alone is sufficient to know the way in which we must be saved.
On the other had, the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent wanted to include the words “partly” in Scripture and “partly” in tradition. This indicates two separate distinct sources, the Bible and tradition. Due to the protests of two Italian priests saying it undermined the sufficiency of Scripture. The final draft of Trent includes the phrase “Scripture and tradition,” which may or may not mean “partly.”
If we find the truth in Scripture and tradition, it might mean that we find truth in Scripture and in Church tradition. If Church tradition is simply repeating the doctrine of the Bible, then that is affirming sola Scriptura. But if Scripture alone is not sufficient and it is necessary to mix with another source of truth in addition to Scripture, then this is a violation of sola Scriptura.
Scripture alone is both necessary and sufficient to know the truth.
Human reason applied to Scripture is necessary, but not sufficient.
This is not a Protestant doctrine, but a patristic Catholic doctrine.
St. Augustine wrote in AD 405 in his letter to Jerome, that he had learned to hold only the Holy Scripture inerrant.
I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error (Letters of St. Augustine 82.1.3)
An astute observer here is going to note the fact that I have quoted the authority of a Church Father to affirm sola Scriptura. Is that not a violation of this principle? Not at all! What Augustine says here is true. He affirms that all men err on other points. We affirm only that the entirety of Scripture is without error.
Again this brings us back around a vicious circle.
How do we know our understanding of Scripture is without error?
Simply, we don’t.
Ask any Protestant if he believes in Semper Reformanda, that the Church is “always reforming,” and must always examine our doctrine for mistakes.
Might your pastor and denominational church leaders be in error on doctrine and always need reformation?
Almost universally, this will be answered as, “yes.”
Some might qualify, “On the big questions, my church is correct. There is one God who exists on a Holy Trinity. Jesus was born a man and died for our sins. He was resurrected, ascended and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. On that I can be certain, but on the details, I am uncertain.”
The irony here is that this is essentially the position of the Roman Catholic Church too. There are only a few ecumenical Church Councils and exactly two ex cathedra doctrines of the pope that are thought to be infallible. The Roman Catholic Church has changed its position on doctrines that were previously taught.
However, there are many broad doctrinal positions that have never changed. A few years ago, the Doctrinal Commentary on concluding formula of Professio fidei was issued to more clearly define what is an infallible teaching.
It explains the tradition of the profession of the faith and the varying kinds of doctrine, including the degrees of assent that each doctrine requires. Protestants would agree with the substance of what is stipulated in this document, but not the rationale behind the idea that the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to make these statements based on “the primacy of the Successor of Peter [in] terms of jurisdiction and infallibility.”
Every Christian admits that there are points in which their church might be in error on the Bible. I am always reminded of the answer to a question that I asked R.J. Rushdoony as to how far Reformed Protestants can go in cooperating with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Arminians in efforts toward social reform.
What about these other churches who don’t preach the Gospel or preach another Gospel?
The answer he gave was far more all-embracing and “catholic” than I expected.
When we are Christians, to the extent to any degree we are faithful to the Gospel, we are bigger than ourselves. And that is why whether they are Arminian, Roman Catholic, or Calvinist, people who are truly serving the Lord are bigger than their own thinking, bigger than their own faith. We transcend ourselves. And that is the glory of the Gospel. It enables us to do more than we can do. It is the grace of God working through us. It is not that we teach different Gospels; we are trying to teach the same Gospel even though at times our emphasis will be a warped one, a limited one, a partial one. All the same, God can use it.
In other words, we can preach the Gospel according to our limited understanding and interpretation, and even so, the Holy Spirit operates though preaching because the message of salvation is spiritually discerned. The Gospel can be comprehended rationally, but this is not what makes it effective. The power of the Holy Spirit moving through the preaching is what changes hearts and minds, not our correct exposition of doctrine.
So the writers of Scripture were not led according to any man’s private interpretation, but every individual, every Church, uses a private interpretation when we reduce the Bible to points of doctrine.
In the final analysis, the Roman Catholic Church has said that truth proceeds in part in Scripture and in part from Church tradition. Protestants have held that the Bible alone is the source of all truth, but Church tradition may assist us in understanding. Both Protestants and Roman Catholics believe that Scripture alone is inerrant, but the Church may err.
Recent Catholic Apologists’ Distortion of the Sola Scriptura Doctrine
Scott Hahn is a former evangelical Protestant convert to Roman Catholicism and author of over two dozen books on theology and apologetics. He was never an ordained minister in any of the recognized Reformed denominations – not the OPC, not the PCA, not the RPCNA, not the ARP, etc. His first church was a member of the American Baptist Churches – a sometimes conservative, but more often “woke” liberal church denomination. At the blog of one of his former churches, I found an article by the current pastor attacking “Christian Nationalists” as a “cancer in the Church” You get the idea. Hahn’s claim of street cred earned from many years as a conservative Reformed minister is doubtful.
On the other hand, Hahn is an incredibly prolific author and I am sure that his apologetic on many topics is quite sound. However, he has no grasp on what the doctrine of sola Scriptura actually states. His most popular works include Rome Sweet Home, a memoir which recounts his long journey and conversion to Catholicism (written at age 35). The book is a critique of evangelicalism in general.
Gary DeMar of American Vision summarized Hahn’s book in a recent article at the American Vision website.
Former Protestants Scott and Kimberly Hahn have written a book that is getting a great deal of praise from Catholics and Protestants. The Hahns have become effective apologists for the Catholic position. Scott, a former Presbyterian minister, and his wife consider their embrace of Catholicism as a homecoming. In fact, the title of their book is Rome Sweet Home: Our Journey to Catholicism. While there are many issues in this book that I would like to address, my goal is to concentrate on the central issue – sola scriptura. …
There is no doubt in my mind that Rome Sweet Home is a cleverly devised piece of propaganda published mainly for Catholics. Very few Protestants would ever be convinced by the arguments put forth by the Hahns. The book is designed to keep Catholics in check, most of whom do not know their Bibles. The reasoning goes something like this:
Consider the Hahns. Scott and Kimberly were forceful Catholic antagonists while they studied in one of America’s leading Protestant seminaries. Scott had a promising career as a pastor and seminary professor. But as the Hahns studied the Bible more closely they found that they could not answer the most basic objection to Roman Catholic doctrines. In time they began to see what you already know: The Roman Catholic Church is the true church.
After reading Rome Sweet Home I came away bewildered. I could not believe how poorly the Hahns argued Catholic dogma.
Gary DeMar goes on to show how absurdly Hahn understood the doctrine of sola Scriptura.
The issue that sent Scott Hahn over the edge into considering Roman Catholic doctrine was a question a student asked him about sola Scriptura. Here is how Scott recounts the confrontation:
“Professor Hahn, you’ve shown us that sola fide isn’t scriptural [sic] – how the battle cry of the Reformation is off-base when it comes to interpreting Paul [sic]. As you know, the other battle cry of the Reformation was sola scriptura; the Bible alone is our authority, rather than the pope, church councils or Tradition. Professor, where does the Bible teach that ‘Scripture alone’ is our sole authority?"
What was Scott’s response? “I looked at him and broke into a cold sweat.” Scott writes that he “never heard that question before.” This encounter shook Scott. He writes that he “studied all week long” and “got nowhere.” Then he “called two of the best theologians in America as well as some of [his] former professors.” I must admit that if I were to accept the answers that Scott received from these “two best theologians in the country,” I too would have to give up the doctrine of sola Scriptura.
I encourage you to read all of DeMar’s article, but the one straw man that stands out to me is the false definition of sola Scriptura. First, he says it is “the Bible alone is our authority, rather than the pope, church councils or Tradition.” Yes, that is correct. Scripture alone is our only authority.
However, in the next sentence he equates this with “Scripture alone” is our sole authority. Note the two words, “alone” and “sole.”
Sola versus solo.
“Alone” versus “only.”
When I’ve pointed out the difference, I’ve had people ask me, “That makes no sense! Doesn’t that mean the same thing?”
Well no, although the words are sometimes used as synonyms, there is a distinction in theology. By way of analogy, let’s say I bought an electric car. I say, “My new car is great! It runs on electric battery power alone.” A friend wants to know it is a hybrid, but I tell him I don’t know the meaning of the word “hybrid.” He could ask, “Does it run on electricity alone and also gas when you need it, or does it run on electricity only?”
There is a distinct difference. Protestants can look to both Scripture and tradition as a source of authority. Scripture alone is our source of inerrant doctrine on matters of faith, while tradition may err.
Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide
A similar argument can be made about sola fide. To say that we are saved by faith alone is not the same thing as saying no works are involved in our salvation. Faith alone in Christ alone is sufficient for our justification before God.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).
However, the Epistle of James frames it differently.
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone (James 2:17).
Is this a contradiction in Scripture?
It is not, if we read everything in context. First, James uses a Greek phrase that means “faith … by itself.” Then James goes on to explain that “faith without works is dead” (James 2:20,26). This is framed by a passage that shows that true faith is the only thing that is productive of good works. Then he defines “by itself” as meaning “only.”
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only (James 2:24).
The best translations have the words “only” or “merely.” So this is perfectly consistent with Paul’s statement that you cannot be saved “of works” done “of yourselves.” We are created by God to do good works, so we cannot be saved without good works.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them (Ephesians 2:10).
In conclusion, we can know by Scripture alone how we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, for the glory of God alone.
Sola Scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christu, soli Deo gloria.
Another well-known Catholic apologist known for critiquing evangelicals is Ken Hensley who also claims he was an ordained Protestant minister for eleven years before converting to the Catholic faith in 1997.
And what I was coming to see was that sola Scriptura isn’t something Luther and Calvin embraced because they had done an inductive study of the New Testament and found that it teaches sola Scriptura. They embraced it because they came, at the time of the Reformation, to no longer believe in the existence of this authoritative Church. Is Sola Scriptura Scriptural? Part IV: Why do Protestants Embrace it?
The problem with the above statement (beyond that fact that it presents no objective evidence for his extraordinary claim) is that regardless of whether or not Protestants have a wrong motivation for embracing sola Scriptura, the obvious fact remains that the Roman Catholic Church can and does err. This is an unavoidable conundrum. Once you admit that the Church can and does err, then Scripture alone by default becomes the supreme authority.
The Church Fathers on Sola Scriptura
Furthermore, sola Scriptura is not a peculiarly Protestant doctrine, but a patristic doctrine. Therefore, it was first a Catholic doctrine. Many of the Church Fathers directly use the phrase “Scripture alone” in their arguments against heresy.
Tertullian
Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom, which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scripture alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground. For that which commends men’s common sense is its very simplicity, and its participation in the same feelings, and its community of opinions; and it is deemed to be all the more trustworthy, inasmuch as its definitive statements are naked and open, and known to all."
Origen
We, however, in conformity with our belief in that doctrine, which we assuredly hold to be divinely inspired, believe that it is possible in no other way to explain and bring within the reach of human knowledge this higher and diviner reason as the Son of God, than by means of those Scripture alone which were inspired by the Holy Spirit, i.e., the Gospels and Epistles, and the law and the prophets, according to the declaration of Christ Himself.
Athanasius
Now one might write at great length concerning these things, if one desired to go rate details respecting them; for the impiety and perverseness of heresies will appear to be manifold and various, and the craft of the deceivers to be very terrible. But since holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters, to read the Divine word, I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention, and for the sake of which principally I have written these things." (Athanasius, To the Bishops of Egypt 1.4).
… the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth (Athanasius, Against the Heathen 1.1.3).
Note that Athanasius states Scripture as being “sufficient” to teach the truth. This is the Reformed Protestant view of sola Scriptura. The Church Fathers did in fact make arguments from other sources of truth. For example, in the quote below, an appeal is made to the tradition of the Nicene Creed, but Athanasius insists that the Creed only affirmed, for people reading the words “honestly,” the doctrine announced in Scripture.
Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ, announced in divine Scripture (Athanasius, de Synodis 1.6).
Augustine
At the same time, as I have said already, it is to the canonical Scripture alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place.
Theodoret
Do not, I beg you, bring in human reason. I shall yield to Scripture alone.
The Reformed Confessions
How then do Reformed Protestants interpret Scripture if men are fallible? What or who then is the standard for interpretation?
Several of the Reformed Confessions deal with this very question.
Westminster Confession of Faith
Section 6. The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.
Section 9. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
Section 10. The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Did the Reformation liberate the people of God from only one interpretation of the Bible?
I am surprised to hear Roman Catholic apologists using the argument that the doctrine of sola Scriptura claims that tradition cannot be appealed to, when the Protestants’ own Confessions and Catechisms constantly appeal to tradition and are a tradition unto themselves.
I am also surprised to hear the argument, “You cannot find the doctrine of sola Scriptura anywhere in Scripture.”
On one level, that is true. We do not find this exact phrase in Scripture. However, on another level, it is absurd. As a doctrine, sola Scriptura is derived from many places in Scripture. One could make a similar argument about the Trinity. We don’t find the word, “Trinity,” anywhere in the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity is not clearly spelled out in Scripture as it is in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. However, there are lots of scriptural proofs for the Trinity.
In the same way, the doctrine of sola Scriptura is supported in many places in Scripture.
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:20-21).
Does Scripture allow us to have our own interpretation of His Word?
It is important that the words “private interpretation” be understood in the whole context of the passage which is a polemic against false teachers. However, Peter is stating categorically that Scripture both originates from God and is properly interpreted by God. Scripture cannot be contradicted by man’s fallible will. God’s perfect will reigns supreme, while the will of man is compromised by his corrupt nature. However, this passage does not teach against interpreting the Bible either by our own self or by relying to some degree on tradition, but it is setting out a clear line between the perfect will of God and the imperfect will of man.
Reformed Protestants do respect the development of doctrine by tradition. This is why the Creeds are of importance in defending doctrines such as the Trinity. Properly defined, sola Scriptura is one of these doctrines as well.
To illustrate this, it is necessary to show that the doctrine of sola Scriptura originates with the doctrine of soli Christus – Christ alone – or the doctrine that Christ is the only mediator between God and man, and that there is salvation through no other. Christ is identified in the Word of God as the incarnation of the Word. Just as Christ alone is our mediator, so the Word of God alone is our authority.
The Reformed Protestant view is that Scripture is both necessary and sufficient alone to know the truth. Church tradition is a necessary interpreter, but is not sufficient alone in order to know the truth.
The Roman Catholic view defaults to the position that Scripture alone is insufficient without Church tradition. This does not put Church tradition subordinate to Scripture, but either equal to or above it.
When Church tradition seems to contradict the plain meaning of a text, Roman Catholics will maintain that Church tradition must be accommodated. In extreme cases, Catholic theologians will propose that Scripture can mean two things – or one by interpretation and another by accommodation to Church tradition.
Two Examples
The Woman of Revelation 12 is widely identified by Catholics as the Virgin Mary. This interpretation has been held by many commentators of the medieval and modern Catholic Church. This view does not negate the alternative interpretation of the Woman representing the Church, since Mary is herself considered both the Mother of God and the Mother of the Church in Roman Catholic dogma. However, some Catholic commentaries allow that Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Revelation 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the Church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Revelation 12:6,13-17; cf. Isaiah 50:1; 66:7; Jeremiah 50:12). However, such commentaries are also quick to note that “by accommodation the Church applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin” (Note on Revelation 12:6, Douay Version 1957, emphasis mine).
Another famous example concerns Martin Luther’s revelation on the sacrament of penance. Luther wrote that he was shocked in reading Erasmus’ newly published Greek New Testament, that the frequent command was to repent – not do penance – as had been translated in Latin by the Roman Catholic Church. “Do penance; the times are completed; believe the gospel (Mark 1:15). The difference here is that to repent implies a change of heart as a result of hearing the Gospel and to do penance implies that the sinner can do works in order to prepare himself to receive salvation.
These are just two of many examples of misinterpreting the plain meaning of Scripture in order to support a later tradition.
The Roman Catholic argument that sola Scriptura is unreasonable comes either from
Where Scripture and Church tradition disagree, Protestants say that the Word of God is supreme. Church councils, confessions and creeds are useful, but they may err. Only Scripture is inerrant. Where a passage of Scripture is difficult to understand, the interpretation must be made by appealing to other similar passages of Scripture that are more plain. While we may be guided by other sources, ultimately Scripture is the supreme rule of the Christian faith.
1 Solo Scriptura, historically called nuda Scriptura, meaning “bare scripture” is a term used by some Protestants to describe the view that scripture is the only rule of faith to the exclusion of all other sources, while in contrast, sola Scriptura teaches that the Scripture alone is infallible, without excluding Church tradition and other sources entirely, but viewing them as subordinate and ministerial. A view similar to nuda Scriptura was advocated by Sebastian Franck, even arguing that the early Church theologians were servants of the Antichrist. Nuda Scriptura was taught by a few Anabaptists such as Conrad Grebel and some radical reformers, insisting that Christians should not look to tradition but to the Scripture alone. However, many radical reformers did not argue for nuda Scriptura, including Balthasar Hubmaier, who often quoted the Church fathers in his writings. Some Evangelicals and many Plymouth Bretheren also teach views comparable to nuda Scriptura. The view is especially common within modern fundamentalism.
]]>Although tradition does not rule our interpretation, it does guide it. If upon reading a particular passage you have come up with an interpretation that has escaped the notice of every other Christian for two thousand years, or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, chances are pretty good that you had better abandon your interpretation (R.C. Sproul, The Agony of Deceit, 34-35).
Scripture alone, sola Scriptura, is not the same as Scripture only, solo Scriptura.1 To put it in other terms, to say that Scripture alone is the only rule of faith and practice – or as the Westminster Catechism says, “is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him” – is quite different than to say that only Scripture is the guide to all truth.
]]>The Nazi problem has only increased since 2022 and must be addressed. Although it sounds cruel, self-cleansing is the ideal way. “Tensions are mounting in Kiev amid concerns about a potential state coup, according to local and Western media reports. The rumors of a coup have stirred a political discourse focusing on the stability of the current Ukrainian government. Valery Zaluzhny, a key figure in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, is in the spotlight. He is believed to be the potential leader of the rumored coup. The speculations about the coup could mark the beginning of the end of Zelensky’s presidency” (Kyiv on Edge: Rumors of State Coup Threaten Zelensky’s Administration).
Background – Chief commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Stepan Bandera admirer, Valerii Zaluzhny, said in an interview with The Economist exactly a year ago today, that if the Western alliance did not give Ukraine a shopping list of tanks, weapons and air support, he might by the end of the summer be making a speech similar to that of another famous general who surrendered to the Russians.
I know that I can beat this enemy. But I need resources. I need 300 tanks, 600-700 infantry fighting vehicles, 500 Howitzers. Then, I think it is completely realistic to get to the lines of February 23rd. But I can’t do it with two brigades. I get what I get, but it is less than what I need. It is not yet time to appeal to Ukrainian soldiers in the way that Mannerheim1 appealed to Finnish soldiers. We can and should take a lot more territory.
The Ukrainians received all these supplies and more. Now Zaluzhny has said that he did not receive enough and that it was delayed to the time when it is impossible for the Ukrainians to win the conflict by taking back any substantial territory. One also wonders what they would do with these fiercely pro-Russian territories if they actually had them in their hands. It would be like trying to eat a porcupine. One of the ironies of current battle of Avdeevka is that most of the “Russian” soldiers slowly crushing what remains of the perimeter of the city are actually Donetsk Republic fighters, a population that Kiev considers to be Ukrainian. How would these soldiers and pro-Russian civilians be integrated back into Ukraine?
Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, writes a year later, in General to General: A potential peace is being negotiated in Ukraine by military leaders, that General Zaluzhny has already entered into negotiations with the Russian General Valery Gerasimov. The peace terms would be that Ukraine cannot have NATO troops in the country, but still could have some type of security arrangement as a token member. The agreement would not allow NATO to place offensive weapons in Ukraine, but defensive weapons systems would be permitted. Russia would keep the four regions that it has already taken plus Crimea, which acceded to Russia in 2014.
Seymour Hersh wrote:
One American official involved early on in the general-to-general talks told me: “This was not a spur-of-the-moment event,” he said. “This was carefully orchestrated by Zaluzhny. The message was the war is over and we want out. To continue it would destroy the next generation of the citizens of Ukraine.”
The official acknowledged that “there is no question” that Zaluzhny “had some help in deciding to go public from some key Americans.”
“What was the objective of this amazing story?” the official asked. “To get the Ukraine leadership”—meaning Zelensky and his coterie—“to agree to a settlement and to realize that to continue the war was self-destructive.” He said that there was what he called “a bigger objective”: to get the Ukrainian citizenry “to the point where they would agree to negotiations” to end the war.
However, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, not Zaluzhny, is still the president of Ukraine. So this story seems false on its face. Further, the real power to negotiate is with neither Zelenskyy nor Zalushny, but with the Ukrainian nationalists who control the Rada (parliament) and the presidential cabinet. There is a Ukrainian law signed by Zelensky that forbids direct negotiations with Russia while Putin is president. Yet a great amount of power lies with the military and its commanders if they would unite to defy Zelensky and the prohibitive law. The article claims Zaluzhny is negotiating not with Putin, but with the top Russian general Gerasimov. Likewise, only Putin and the Russian Duma have the authority to negotiate a peace treaty, not Gerasimov.
For this reason, I doubt that Hersh’s article is fully accurate, and it may not even be half correct.
That being said, it is possible that some behind the scenes discussions are taking place. This story presents similar terms as the alleged treaty that the Russians offered to Ukraine in March 2022, in which Russia would annex no territory, the Minsk Agreements would be implemented, Lugansk and Donetsk would have autonomy, and Ukraine would stay out of NATO. Yet to be agreed upon was whether both sides would forge a security agreement with the Western alliance.
What is false about Hersh’s article is the premise that it is the Russians who are looking for a peace deal to avoid a “long stalemate.” It is rather who Zaluzhny admitted in a follow-up interview with The Economist, “It would take a massive technological leap to break the deadlock.” On the contrary, Ukraine’s army is beginning to collapse all along the front lines in Donbass, Zaporozhye and Kherson. Russia has already secured a tactical victory. Ukraine cannot take back the the four regions as Zaluzhny promised in 2022. Casualty numbers on both sides are propagandized. However, most sources cite that at least 200,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed, plus hundreds of thousands of more casualties. We can reasonably know that casualties on the Russian side are lower than Ukraine (despite the “cloud of war” propaganda) simply because even Western sources admit that Russia has a 7 to 1 artillery advantage and far superior air power over Ukraine.
Furthermore, Russia has a military force of 2.2 million, a citizen population at least five times the size of Ukraine, and an economy that is now the largest in Europe in terms of GDP/PPP now ahead of Germany and just behind Japan.
Unless the United States were to send hundreds of thousands of troops to Ukraine, the war is unwinnable. Even then, Russia would mobilize its whole society to defend the Motherland. It is unlikely that the US could actually “win” a direct war with Russia. Even if the US could mobilize that many troops to the border of Ukraine, the state department would not be able to hide the large number of casualties from the American public. If university students are decrying the 10,000 people killed in Gaza, how might they react to the same number of Americans? But it’s still possible for the West to arm and kill hundreds of thousands of more Ukrainians for no reason except to support the government in Kiev and to pretend that Western hegemony is still intact.
The longer the war goes on, the more the economy of Europe will suffer, the more Ukraine’s ongoing Nazi problem will be exposed, and the more NATO will fracture. Hungary and Slovakia, now openly say they would deny Ukraine NATO membership. The Netherlands and Turkey are likely to follow suit. Poland has closed the shared border with Ukraine in essence crippling its economy.
In July, the Polish parliament adopted a resolution that includes “recognition of guilt” by Ukraine for the Volhynian massacre — anti-Polish ethnic cleansings conducted by Ukrainian nationalists in German occupied Poland through the summer of 1943. According to the resolution, “Polish-Ukrainian reconciliation, which representatives of both nations have been building for years, should also include an admission of guilt and perpetuation of the memory of the victims of World War II.”
Meanwhile, Canadian officials had to apologize … for paying tribute to a Ukrainian Canadian World War II veteran who was later revealed to be a member of the Nazi German Waffen-SS’s Galizien Division. Poland’s ambassador to Ukraine later told Canadian CTV News that “this is a person who participated in an organization that was targeting Poles, was committing mass murders of Poles, not only the military personnel but also civilians” (Slovakia may join two other NATO countries at odds with Zelensky).
Tactically, the Russians won a long time ago, but there probably won’t be any serious negotiations between Russia and the West until 2025. I’d argue that the Russians won in the first few days of the war when they took about 20 percent of the territories of Ukraine and secured their main objective of defending the Russian-speaking population, many of whom were also tied to Russia through dual citizenship.
So there is no real need for Russia to “negotiate” with a government that cannot legally do so, or with the top general who is a self-proclaimed Banderite. More likely any preliminary negotiations will be between Russia and the Western alliance. Two years later, Russia’s price for peace will be somewhat higher than it was in the beginning of 2022. Namely, Russia will demand territory up to the border along the Dnieper River and all along the Black Sea shore. Then what’s left of the Ukraine is not dangerous for Russia and therefore not that attractive anymore for the West. Ukraine also becomes entirely uninteresting to the European Union except as a liability. How do you operate a country stripped of its sea ports with virtually no GDP? At least in an economic alliance with BRICS+, Ukraine would retain access to the sea and could be built into an energy hub for Russian gas, oil pipelines to Europe and a conduit for China’s Belt and Road initiative.
The Russians will demand in negotiations the regions surrounding the cities of Kherson, Nikolaev, Kharkov, Dniepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, Odessa, Izmail, Transnistria, Kiev; the regions east of Kiev, and anywhere else there is a near 50 percent self-identifying Russian population. They will leave the western (predominantly Ukrainian) provinces to security forces from Poland and Hungary. These are the former Polish regions of Lviv and Ivanovo-Frankivsk; and the Hungarian Transcarpathian region of Mukacheve and Uzhgorod. Russia would thereby avoid an occupation problem, which would be the Russian version of trying to swallow a porcupine.
However, the West and the Ukrainians will decline Russia’s offer. Then the war will continue until it becomes unreasonable to continue, or until Russia has taken what it wants anyway. At that point, Ukraine will auto-revert to the pre-2014 situation, with Ukraine being run by a pro-Russian government and tied to the Russian economy, but with the southern and eastern parts of historic “New Russia” ceded to the Russian Federation.
In the meantime, the most likely short term outcome for Ukraine would be a coup — a Euromaidan Part 2 — with Zaluzhny or another Ukrainian general seizing power. Media sources are already reporting on the lack of support for Zelensky who has suspended presidential elections in March. The neo-Nazi’s coup would be followed by rigged elections as also occurred in 2014. The Ukraine government would try to continue the war, but would soon fail without Western aid. A coup would provide an “easy out” for the West in that NATO could claim that it could not legally support a government that had seized power — less so one led by a Stepan Bandera admirer — even while they officially deny their role in Euromaidan Part 1.
Much of the population will blame the nationalists for the disaster. Some of the more extreme nationalists will want to oust Zaluzhny for wanting to negotiate with Russia. In this part of the world, civil wars and violent factions commonly follow on the heels of big wars. The two most recent examples were during the Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War after World War I, when rival communist factions in western and eastern Ukraine allied with Austria-Hungary and Russia respectively; and the western Ukraine Banderite rebellion during WWII, after which the Ukrainian-speaking portions of Poland were transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic.
The problem is that Nazi ideology must be somehow wiped out of people’s minds. The Ukrainian neo-Nazi government is far worse than Russian rule. Demilitarization and denazification are two of the main goals of the war announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Demilitarization is fairly easy to see happening. Russia is getting close to it, if not already there. Ukraine’s ability to fight relies 100 percent on western aid. But denazification is not that easy. Part of the population that won’t repent should somehow be utilized by those who realize that the real enemy are those who provoked the war by praising Ukrainian Nazism (ultra-nationalism).
Western media frequently ran exposés of the Nazi problem in Ukraine prior to 2022. Ukrainian nationalism took the form of oppressing Russians in Donbass; closing Russian schools everywhere; death squads killing pro-Russian journalists. This has led to a permanent militarization of police; secret trials; expulsion of Russian-speaking people; persecution of other minorities; adoption of Western degenerate social policies; and recently a turn against their own Ukrainian Orthodox Church. There are no competing political parties that haven’t been outlawed. There are no remaining alternative media sources that haven’t been shut down.
The question is not — How bad is it now really?
It is rather — How bad will it get?
A power struggle among Ukraine’s ultra-nationalists looms on the horizon.
What should we expect as the society further breaks down and the West abandons Ukraine?
The Nazi problem has only increased since 2022 and must be addressed.
Who is going to do that?
Although it sounds cruel in 2023, self-cleansing is the ideal way. It is much like the human immune system that eliminates every sickness from within. Moreover, Russia has a similar problem. They are now in the middle of the discussion of what to do with the part of Russian society that didn’t support this war — tycoons who “purchased” multi-billion dollar companies for nothing; former government officials, famous artists and bloggers who turned against Russia; ordinary fools engaged by Ukrainian intelligence to sabotage the closest electric transformer for a couple hundred bucks.
Soldiers returning from the war with thousands of unregistered firearms is fuel for a civil war. In Ukraine, it could be a real war with some battles, while in Russia it may be that the disloyal part of the society will be forced out of the country and the rest will be stricken with dishonor. If this sounds far-fetched, we should remember what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan after the US pulled out troops and ceased military aid.
I encourage people who are sympathetic to Ukraine, to keep being sympathetic. Be sympathetic to the Ukrainian people, but not the neo-Nazi element in the Kiev government and military. Likewise, be sympathetic to the Russian people and United Russia, but not the liberals, ultra-nationalists or communists. There are extremists who are minorities within each country, and wield too much influence in politics and the military.
In fact, the entire purpose of the West’s Ukraine Project was not to get victory on the battlefield, but to enforce sanctions in order to cause something similar to the Kiev Maidan revolution of 2014 — a Moscow-Maidan — in which some faction would topple Putin. Our own politicians knew well ahead of time of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s ill-fated march to Moscow. There has been some speculation that this was a coordinated a response that would have brought regime change in Moscow. However, that would never have made Russia safer for the West. For all intents and purposes, these efforts have only strengthened Russia, and have not weakened Putin’s support at home.
The only conclusion I can come to is that America’s leaders are stupid. They are as dangerous as a monkey with a razor blade.
I encourage Ukraine supporters to look at the big picture. All of the wars that have been lost by America since Vietnam (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Russia, and now Gaza) are due to the fact that political leaders have tried to create a neoconservative world order in which the United States ruled the world (George H.W. Bush and W. Bush), or have promoted a Western neo-liberal globalist alliance (Bill and Hillary Clinton, Obama and Biden). The West has tried to force its political ideology and economic system on the rest of the world through the US dollar and by projecting political and military power. Now this is all collapsing. Like all great empires, the US overextended its military commitments, devalued USD currency to pay for it, and created many rivals through its aggressive posture. Instead of repenting and taking the steps to preserve something for the long-term, America’s neocon leaders are currently projecting national sins onto an imagined “axis of evil,” consisting of countries that pose absolutely no threat to the United States militarily.
US conflicts in Ukraine, Libya/Northern Africa, Syria, and now Israel, could actually be solved in one hour by stopping the military funding and conceding to some reasonable demands. The world is a different place than even a few years ago. The United States’ ability to wreak havoc through sanctions on pariah nations and kill millions in futile foreign wars is no longer a realistic option. The US hasn’t won any of these wars, and the surrounding countries see that as Henry Kissinger said, “To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” They all know that America’s presidents have always abandoned every country they promised to help in the end.
The entire world now laughs at President Joe Biden. The president and US state department officials are purposefully kept waiting to meet with Middle Eastern leaders attempting to cool tensions in the region. Some have been snubbed and turned away. The US government still believes that it is the world’s leader, but the world outside the West no longer treats it so. China laughs at the United States’ attempts to slow it from producing 5K technology, and is now talking about beating us to 6K and 7K. Even President Javier Milei of Argentina wants ties with the United States economically only on the condition that Trump becomes president, which he believes is inevitable. He hates Biden. However, it is possible that things could be too far gone in January 2025 to salvage much of an advantage in tying the Argentinian national currency to the USD.
In 1996, political science expert Samuel P. Huntington published his thesis, Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Part of Huntington’s thesis is that large civilization states are emerging that are based on national unity of culture, not ideology or politics. The major powers that have emerged are too big to fight each other without global catastrophic results. Therefore, regional conflicts will continue along the lines cleft nations (like Israel, Ukraine, Niger, etc.) that represent the fault lines between the great civilizations.
When these conflicts get out of hand the regional power will have the permission of other great powers to put their regional conflicts in order. Russia is a civilization state. Russia has gained that permission from all nations, except for the Western alliance. Russia will order the Russian world with or without Western interference. Even with hundreds of billions of dollars of military packages sent to Ukraine, Russia will prevail in the Russian sphere. We will soon find Russia, China, India and the Arab League dictating terms of peace in their own regions in order to solve regional conflicts rather than being blocked by the US.
No matter how you view geopolitics, the stark fact of the matter is that our legacy media is merely an extension of our state department and the Pentagon’s propaganda talking points. After the numerous lies about Vietnam, Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Niger, etc., they continue the deception with a straight face. But the veneer is wearing thin. Much of the above is published outside the West, but our media suppresses it.
The goal of the neconservative and neoliberal globalists is to preserve the unipolar power of the US or the “West.” The emerging multipolar world is assumed by the “Rest.” The Bible teaches the expansion of the Kingdom of God, not the kingdom of Western liberalism, is destined to consume all nations. (Daniel 2:44,45).
The unipolar world died on February 22, 2022. Welcome to the multipolar world!
1 This refers to the surrender of Finland after the February 1940 “Winter’s War” in which Finland was aligned with Germany against the Soviet Union. The Finns decided that they must give in to the Soviet demands. Finland participated in the Second World War initially in a defensive war against the Soviet Union, followed by an offensive war against the Soviet Union acting in concert with Nazi Germany, and then finally fighting alongside the Allies against Germany.
]]>A power struggle among Ukraine’s ultra-nationalists looms on the horizon. The Nazi problem has only increased since 2022 and must be addressed. Although it sounds cruel, self-cleansing is the ideal way.
]]>The most outrageous statement was to say that neither Russia nor Ukraine have any professional troops left. This is just beyond irresponsible reporting.
Up until last September, the majority of troops fighting against Ukraine were the Lugansk and Donetsk republic volunteer militias, the Chechen mercenaries and Wagner.
Few regular Russian army troops out of the total 830,000 mobilized have seen action. Most of the so-called conscripts are not draftees, but are reserves that have had past military training or experience. There are also a large number of volunteers, but they are not the majority.
The Russians are currently playing a waiting game prior to launching their own offensive while they build up more weapons and more troops.
Even Western sources have admitted that Russia has more weapons than they had at the start of the war, and more mobilized troops.
Russia also recently surpassed Germany and GDP/PPP to become the first largest economy in Europe, and the fifth largest in the world.
It’s advantageous to be on the defensive because the equal or larger size army on the defensive loses about one-third of its troops to death and casualties as the attacking army.
Part of the waiting game is the economic war. Germany has deindustrialized. The sanctions on Russia make energy for their factories too expensive.
In a recent speech, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken claimed that Russia was seeking to destroy the Europe’s economy by refusing to sell gas and oil to Germany. On the contrary, Russia offers cheap energy to Germany But the US forces Germany to sanction imports.
It amazes me that they are able to say such things.
The fact is that the Western powers were never planning on engaging Russia with NATO directly. They planned to provoke a war in order to sanction Russia into economic collapse. Since that has backfired big time and they do not have an off-ramp or a reverse gear.
But there are signs this alliance against Russia is cracking. Even Poland’s president, who has been Ukraine’s staunchest supporter has recently turned agaisnt the Kyiv government.
“Ukraine is behaving like a drowning person clinging to anything available,” President Andrzej Duda told Polish journalists in New York on Tuesday. “A drowning person is extremely dangerous, capable of pulling you down to the depths . . . simply drown the rescuer.” ~ The Financial Times, Poland ramps up Ukraine criticism
This startling statement comes on the heels of Duda having criticized Ukraine’s Nazi past and the fact that Kyiv government, which is made up largely of ultra-nationalists, has never acknowledged or expressed apologies for the massacre of over “100,000 Poles” by Ukrainian Nazis during and after WWII. The Polish parliament has said that the murders, carried out between 1943 and 1945 by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists under the leadership of Stepan Bandera, bore elements of genocide. ~ Reuters, Poland asks Ukraine to confront dark past
]]>The most outrageous statement was to say that neither Russia nor Ukraine have any professional troops left. This is just beyond irresponsible reporting.
]]>The times ahead will be radically different from those we’ve experienced in our lifetimes, though similar to many times before. How do I know that? Because they have always been. ~ Ray Dalio, Principles For Dealing with the Changing World Order.
Looking at the struggle between the liberal west and the nations of Russia and China, it is easy to get swept up into the hype of the “good vs. evil” narrative. As Christians, we need to see God’s providence in all of it in advancing the kingdom. A big part of this will be clearing the legacy media smokescreens.
How can we discern reality from false narratives?
Western neo-liberal globalism will fail and civilization states will emerge in its place in a multipolar world within the next few years. It is happening more quickly than first imagined. On May 8, 2023, lasting peace was achieved in the Middle East. This is something we haven’t seen in centuries. The liberals must applaud this while simultaneously and hypocritically condemning the “bad actors” we were at war with just a few days ago. But how can we resist? The US neocons and neo-liberals can’t afford to wage war against the direction of the whole world.
Soon we will see a big shift in the Liberal narrative concerning the Ukraine conflict.
I don’t think that you can find a western news service that is more pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian than the London Daily Telegraph
I found the title intriguing. I listened to the whole thing all the way through waiting for the punchline.
Right in the middle of the video, there is a small column of a few Ukrainian tanks going through a village and an elderly woman is giving apples to the Kyiv regime’s soldiers. When you look at it carefully the are no apples. It looks like she has a basket full of confetti! A soldier goes to grab just one of the apples and it’s obvious that he just pulls a few pieces of confetti out of the basket! So this is obviously staged propaganda, which would be funny if it were not so tragic given the reality of their circumstances.
The entire video speaks about how Ukraine is not ready for a counter-offensive despite being given (maybe?) enough equipment. This is due to lack of training and logistics. Further, a nation at war doesn’t talk openly about when they are going to launch a counter-offensive anyway. So instead the counter-offensive (that is not) is presented as a type of a psychological operation.
Then the narrator says that if a counter-offensive is launched now and it does not achieve its total goal of driving the Russians out of Ukraine, then nations like Brazil and China who are already calling for a negotiated settlement will gain a lot more support from most of the non-western nations in the world. Egads! Calls for peace could be a disaster for the western necon “endless wars” project.
Finally, the narrator says that the counter-offensive has already begun and he says it’s psychological because it might be “causing the Russians to worry.”
Good joke!
I said from the end of last summer that the narrative shift would have four stages.
We are now between #3 and #4. Though some are clinging desperately to #2. And less occasionally you will still find a clown narrative saying Russia is losing badly.
This is my point. Military intelligence psychological operations (PSYOPs) work. You can convince people with enough propaganda to believe the narrative. Over time, the narrative collapses when enough evidence mounts up creating cognitive dissonance in the minds of the hearers. They will suddenly have a “What the $%^&! We were lied to!” moment. Here is the problem for the propagandists.
How do you keep the PSYOP going in the face of sheer reality that contradicts everything?
The answer: You have to create a contingency clause within the foundation of the false narrative.
In the beginning, the Russian narrative was that there had been a western-backed violent coup in Kyiv in 2014 through ultra-nationalist militias and a resulting war in Donbass for eight years also funded by the West. After a year of this, the Kyiv regime promised on every occasion to implement the Minsk I and II agreements. By January 2022, NATO countries had stoked 80,000 troops in Donbass and promised that Ukraine would join NATO. There were public calls and discussions in favor of Ukraine getting nuclear weapons. Russia had no choice to invade to protect its existence and future as a superpower. The goal was to demilitarize the Donbass region and de-Nazify Ukraine (that is, eliminate the neo-Nazi militias and the racist anti-Russian element in the Kyiv government) — secure non-NATO neutral military status toward Russia — gain autonomous status within Ukraine for Lugansk and Donetsk republics — open talks for a new security infrastructure between Russia and Europe including a new strategic nuclear weapons non proliferation treaty. This is the narrative Putin has stuck to.
The Western narrative was that this was all Russian disinformation and that Russia had invaded a sovereign democracy to steal land and resources from Ukraine. The goal was to take over the whole country in three days. When that failed, Russia committed thousands of war crimes including rapes and tortures. Putin is a dictator and a war criminal while Zelensky is a hero of democracy. Ukraine took back some territory and Russia has been losing ever since. Russia is almost out of missiles, ammunition and troops. Putin is dying of cancer. Putin is about to be overthrown by his inner circle. People are leaving Russia to escape “conscription.” We just need to stick with Ukraine and supply them with hundreds of billions of dollars and suffer with them economically for as long as it takes. The war — as is the coming war with China — is framed as a battle between democracy vs. totalitarianism. Still the Biden administration sticks to this narrative, but internally there is dissent on how much longer the lies can be trotted out.
I looked at all Putin’s speeches leading up to the war. Never once was there a time period claimed for the duration of the special military operation. He always said, “We do not plan to occupy Ukraine.” The “Three Days to Conquer All of Ukraine” narrative is a western fiction. In reality, what the Russians banked on was immediate talks, which began to happen in Belarus and Turkey until they were scuttled by the West. Even so, they stocked enough supplies for a three year war to last until 2025. In case it escalated, plans were made to ramp up their military industry that was still partially intact from Soviet times. Russia could have taken Donbass in 2014, but waited eight years to prepare in cooperation with the BRICS+ countries for the inevitable sanctions and a western funded counter-offensive. These countries believe that the US/ NATO alliance is threatening Russian security economically and militarily because the US/NATO has also been threatening China, Turkey, India, Brazil, the African Union and the Arab league as well.
In these cases, it does not really matter whose narrative is “true.” It matters what the perception is. There is the situation we need to deal with rationally and realistically. The truth is on neither side, but the question is: “Who is on the Lord’s side?”
That being said, the Russian narrative can actually be corroborated in western news sources leading up to the war. The Minsk agreements failed due to disagreements on its implementation. (From a rational viewpoint, there were faults on all sides — US/NATO, the Kyiv regime, the Donbass separatists, Moscow — although the overriding western tendency is to blame it all on Moscow.) Ukraine had a big Nazi problem among their independent militias and government officials. The US/NATO was training 10,000 troops per year for a big counter-offensive “to kill Russians” (the neocons George W. Bush, John McCain and Lindsey Graham said this openly.) There was also an obvious need for a new nuclear arms agreement that would satisfy both sides. This was all normal factual reality in news reports up until February 2022. Then the “Russian propaganda” rhetoric set in when any of these realities were mentioned.
The sticking point in my debates with neocons and liberals used as an excuse on their side of the argument has been that Ukraine could not implement the Minsk agreements because Russian troops refused to withdraw troops from Donbass. It should be considered on the other side of the argument that Moscow could not withdraw support while ethnic Russian people were being shelled on a weekly basis. (Civilians are still being killed on a weekly basis even today. So simply withdrawing Russian troops from former Ukrainian regions that have since acceded to Russia is not an option until a settlement is reached.) In April of 2022, such a ceasefire agreement was almost reached that had most of the original points of Minsk plus security agreements involving foreign peacekeepers to actually implement the peace plan. Then Joe Biden and Boris Johnson stepped in and squashed the talks.
At that point, the Russian “war crimes” stories went into overdrive. Russia intentionally bombs civilians. Russia rapes thousands of women and children. Russia killed hundreds of civilians in Bucha. Russia created mass graves to hide civilian casualties in Mariupol and northern Ukraine. Russia bombed a railway station in Kramatorsk. Russia shelled a nuclear power plant on land it occupies. Russia bombed Poland. Russia blew up the Nord Stream I and II pipelines. Russia assassinated its own pro-Russian journalists. Russia bombed the Kremlin. Russia has lost as many as 200,000 troops while Ukraine has lost less than 15,000. A bizarro story a week appears that is so clownish that it makes me fear for the sanity of our culture. Yet most swallow it because it supports the narrative.
The biggest piece of dissonance is how inept and incompetent the Russian army is against an inferior force. Yet these same people argue there can be no settlement because if appeased, the Russian army will march all the way to Berlin.
It finally came out that Minsk I and II was a ruse by the West to buy time for another big Kyiv military campaign to take back Donbass and Crimea. This was recently admitted by Poroshenko and officials in France and Germany including Angela Merkel.
There was never any intent to protect the sovereignty of the Donbass regions, implement free federal elections, protect citizens from harassment, crack down on the murders and war crimes by rogue militias according to the agreements. So the regions seceded and made a military security agreement with Russia. This gave Moscow the legal justification to invade to defend its allies. Russia’s justification for the special military operation is a carbon copy of NATO’s justification for its military operation invading Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Both might have been right or wrong, but it is hypocritical to say only the US/NATO wars are right while Russia’s same justification is wrong. American exceptionalism is a convenient lie in this case. Now the tangled web of lies is unraveling.
Locked into the western narrative is the provision for a Russian “failure in victory.” Even if Russia gets exactly what it has asked for the past 20 years and more, it will be framed as a victory for Ukraine and the West. Even if Ukraine surrenders and Russia dictates the terms of settlement, the western neocons can still go on about how eventually Russia is destined to fail. They are forever a pariah nation. Putin is isolated. He is forever a war criminal facing arrest and a war tribunal in the Hague. The stupid Russians destroyed the territories they conquered and will never be able to afford to rebuild them because their economy is in ruins. The territories seized have no economic or strategic value. It cost them a Pyrrhic victory. The pro-Russians in these territories are moral defectives anyway and can’t be educated into a free society so they deserve Putin. Democracy has triumphed because freedom has prevailed in whatever is left of Ukraine.
You will hear all of this rationalization, coping and more. Most Americans will accept it because we will be onto our next foreign policy disaster with China and/or the Arab League. The coming neocon project, a failed hybrid war with China, will be the ground on which Liberal world order finally collapses.
In all of this, God’s kingdom forcefully advances and multitudes are entering the kingdom of God. More Muslims are converted to Christ everyday than were saved in many centuries of Islam. More people come to Christ everyday in Russia, China and all over the world, than were saved in the entire New Testament period. The times we live in are truly like no other times, different not from an economic or political viewpoint, but in terms of a spiritual reality. We can see more clearly than ever before that Christ is the victor and rules over nations.
]]>My thesis is that the western liberal globalism will fail and civilization states will emerge in its place in a multipolar world within the next few years. It is happening more quickly than I first imagined. Just yesterday, lasting peace was achieved in the Middle East. This is something we haven’t seen in centuries. The liberals must applaud this while simultaneously and hypocritically condemning the “bad actors” we were at war with just a few days ago. But how can we resist? The US neocons and neoliberals can’t afford to wage war against the direction of the whole world.
Soon we will see a big shift in the Liberal narrative concerning the Ukraine conflict.
]]>There are nearly as many definitions of Liberalism and Modernism as there are forms of propaganda in the wide world. As the Church uses these terms, however, they may be roughly defined as follows:
Liberalism: The belief that the human person is the ultimate source of freedom and goodness, and so must be emancipated not only from restrictive political and social systems but from the Church, religion and even God Himself. Thus liberalism is above all a spiritual rebellion that is almost inevitably combined with Modernism.
Modernism: The belief that human culture, as the lens through which reality is generally perceived, is actually determinative of truth, such that all convictions must be adapted to satisfy the values of contemporary culture. In practice, this will always be the dominant culture, that is, the fashionable culture of the elites who have the greatest power to form public opinion.
Perhaps the most obvious thing about the combination of these two terms is the following paradox: Once liberals begin to regard human emancipation in terms of Modernism, they necessarily embrace regulatory and even totalitarian political mechanisms to ensure that everyone is properly “liberated”. The State becomes the surrogate for God, but unlike God, the State does not respect human freedom. ~ Dr. Jeff Mirus, In a nutshell: Liberalism and Modernism
The mistake of Liberalism is the idea that we have individual rights. We do not. We have human rights based on God’s Creation ordinances (Genesis 1-3) and the positive affirmations of the Ten Commandments.
Commandments #1-3. The right to worship the one true God and revere His name as holy
Commandment #4. The right to rest on the Sabbath and freedom from perpetual bondage and slavery
Commandment #5. The right to bear and raise children to respect God and parents
Commandment #6. The right to life
Commandment #7. The right to be married to one spouse of the opposite sex and preserve the sanctity of marriage
Commandment #8. The right to get wealth and property, the right to work
Commandment #9. All rights pertaining to a fair trial when accused of sin (church) or a crime (civil).
Commandment #10. The right to work in the pursuit of property lawfully without being subject to guile or conspiracy (not just the pursuit of happiness, but the pursuit of property).
Thus all human rights are Law related. In turn, all biblical laws are based on one of the Creation ordinances — the first principles.
One God made the universe in six days and rested on the seventh day. He made man both male and female in His image and therefore all human life is equally sacred. He made them male and female and commanded them to marry and bear children to be subject to their parents. He commanded them to take dominion of the earth. Then even in sin, God allowed the man and the woman to give an account with evidence and testimony prior to judgment. Then He reinstituted the dominion mandate with the curse of sin crouching at the door — a law working against us — which we must resist and overcome through Christ — the seed of the woman. All this can be found in the first three chapters of the Bible.
We have God-given human rights, but not Liberal individual rights. They are not the same. In fact, second is the counterfeit of the first.
Human existence was created by God as a whole. God made mankind as one, both man and woman, not individuals separate from one another.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (Genesis 1:27).
We do not have human rights as individuals, but only in relationship to God and to one another. In fact, it is nonsensical to speak of rights as existing without relationship to God and others. Liberalism taken to its logical conclusion is ultimately tyrannical. It removes God as the source of our rights and replaces this with the civil state. The Apostle Paul preaching to philosophers at Athens spoke of our being in the world as a direct result of us being made in God’s image as human persons.
And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us (Acts 17:26-27).
Human existence and therefore human rights are always embedded in a particular historical, cultural and social context. We are not made in God’s image as isolated individuals, but always in a network of cultural and social practices. Only in that network are rights even needed. Our place as human beings in the world, when and where we were born, who our parents are, the places we will live, what our names are, which languages we speak, our understanding of ourselves and the world, our ability to ponder the reason for these things — and thousands of other factors — are already predetermined by God. We are bound to obey God and our fellow men according to this calling and destiny.
Individual accountability to families, churches, and other Christian cultural institutions, including civil authority — our rightful position as human beings in the world — is the subject of the fourth political theory. This has replaced the three modernist political theories of Liberalism, Marxism, Fascism. The world in coming years will no longer be focused on individual rights, class rights, rights according to racial preferences, “civil rights,” gender rights, LGBTQ rights, environmental rights, animal rights, etc.
Human rights are derived from honoring and obeying God’s Creation ordinances and His moral laws. In the end, we can’t have true Liberty without first being born-again by the Holy Spirit. We can’t be born of the Spirit without also being added to the Church universal.
Non-believers have human rights as a function of common grace as the outwardly obey the moral law, but they do not have true Liberty. This is why unregenerate man will always seek his own salvation as an individual as he asserts a false Liberal view of his rights instead of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, the knowledge of Christ, and adoption by the Father. In fact, our being in the world reflects the Trinitarian nature of God.
The Trinity is not three individuals in association with one another; it is three Persons in holy communion in the Godhead. Even so, the Church is not individuals in association with one another. It is persons in communion with each other in God. The difference between the two is the difference between life and death, heaven and hell.
This is why the Church Fathers taught, “Salvation is not found outside the Church.” The Church we speak of is not your local church or a human institution, but the ecclesia, those called out of the world’s Babel of individualism and human autonomy. The Church are those called out of an illusory existence of self-rule into a universal Body that rules under the authority of Almighty God.
The entire structure of the Church is an image of this Trinitarian way of existence. The Church’s government, ministries, sacraments, evangelism, etc. must express the way that God exists.
The orthodox standard of the Trinity is the very Truth. The absolute sovereignty of the individual; the freedom of the individual to choose God; and the intellectual ability of the individual to discern Truth stand in opposition to the standard of orthodoxy maintained by the universal Church (Protestantism: Both Orthodox and Catholic!)
About 25 years ago, I wrote the above about the Church, but we can continue this idea in a full circle applying the same principles to a working Christian theory of human rights in the civil realm. To do this, we must first reject Liberalism.
Liberalism is a political theory that states that “individual rights” are the supreme subject of the only permissible political system. LIberalism as spoken of here is with a capital “L” — but not as in “liberal vs. conservative,” which are most often just two subsets of Liberalism.
Every political party that does not begin by affirming the Lordship of Jesus Christ over all of life is some kind of modernist party. In the West, our political parties are almost universally Liberal. Some western governments, having had their origin in the philosophy of the French Revolution, have been Liberal since the 1800s. Then nearly all western political theory after 1945 has been Liberal. By 1991, western countries began to believe that this is the only permissible form of civil government. Liberalism has become the uniparty of the West. For a brief period of time, Liberalism had achieved what looked like unipolarity in the whole world or what the historian Francis Fukuyama termed, The End of History and the Last Man, meaning that Liberalism is the final form of government for all nations. Man has reached the final state of evolution. Ironically, the New World Order began to implode just as soon as it was realized. By 2023, the time of the writing of this article, it has been irretrievably lost.
The biblical view is that the subject of a correct political theory is to give glory to God. Man’s role is to obey God’s laws and have faith to bring Him glory. When the Holy Spirit assists us in this endeavor, we have true Liberty. Our Pilgrim founders did not come to America for individual rights. They did not come for freedom from religious oppression. They came “for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith” (The Mayflower Compact). Human rights, not individual rights, in society will naturally flow from this Godly arrangement. A Christian civilization will arise that is governed by God’s laws through the family, churches, cultural institutions and political bodies.
The liberal conception of freedom is ‘freedom from’ and illusory; it ends up in what Sartre called a ‘prison without walls.’ There is human freedom, not the freedom of the individual….
In Vaclav Havel’s ‘Power of The Powerless’ … he gives the example of the Czech grocer obliged to place a sign in his window:
‘Workers of the world unite’
Havel asks if this sign shows the grocer’s enthusiasm for socialist principles or even his huge desire to show people his faith in his beliefs. No, answers Havel; what it shows is nothing about the content of the sign, but what this implies about the shopkeeper or his loyalty. (Alexander Dugin-and-the-Power of Language)
This raises an obvious question.
Who or what are we loyal to?
The answer will show the difference between biblical “human rights” and Liberal “individual rights.”
Human rights flow from what it means to be human. That is, we are made in the image of God. We have the right to life, and so on. Our human rights come from the imago Dei, the image of God in us makes us human. However, the guarantee for the protection of these human rights in society flows from this affirmation. There must be a moral obedience to God’s law in order to have human rights. “You shall not murder” is the negative corollary to the right to life. So without the law against murder, the right to life does not exist in human society. These rights also flow from a right relationship with — and the strengthening of our individuality in context of — faith, family, church, community, duty, love of one’s country.
If we have these foundations, we do not have “freedom from.” We have “freedom to.”
“Freedom from” is a defensive posture that fosters growing loyalty to the person or thing (likely the government) that protects our individual rights and gives us freedom from — which is always subjective and arbitrary. Freedom from what? One class of person wins more rights while another class always loses. The class or institution that is viewed as the oppressor — which is taking freedom from — loses power, while the oppressed individual is given freedom from oppression.
The government’s role becomes primarily to make people free from socioeconomic insecurity, or from the threat of environmental disaster, or from the hazard of preventable injury and disease. The upshot is that the government eventually does this at the expense of “freedom to.” Freedom to worship, freedom to speak, etc. morphs into freedom from religion and freedom from what it deems as unacceptable speech.
“Freedom to” is more powerful. It enables the individual to see he is already born into a historical, cultural and social context. His very being is embedded as part of a whole, but as a person with individuality. The individual can only be “free to” in relation to factors beyond his control. We can be “free to” in the society only if the civilization around us is governed by God’s moral laws.
So Republicans will never be for the life of a preborn baby as long as they are liberal. They will only see the “rights” of the woman vs. the rights of the child. They will always see the family duty, church duty, obedience to biblical ethics as oppressive and anti-modern. Their laws crafted to protect preborn babies will always carve out exceptions for the “freedom froms” — freedom of the woman from having to bear a rapist’s child, freedom from the inconvenience of unwanted pregnancy, etc.
The great mistake of Christians in our day is that we reason as creatures of modernity. People in the west don’t understand how inextricably linked the assertions of human rights are tied to the Christian worldview. We also don’t see how secular Liberal individual rights are a counterfeit of God-given human rights. We are in modernity and in a world in which liberalism is the last modern political theory standing. So we often use modernist arguments to refute postmodernism. The great mistake of the Church is that we did not first sufficiently refute modernism. We don’t even understand that there could be something else beyond modernism or postmodernism. It’s like asking a fish about water what is beyond the water.
Alexander Dugin relates the following illustration to contrast between modernism and postmodernism.
In the 1800s, the modernist Nietzsche stated, “God is dead.”
In 2023, the postmodernists of Generation Z ask, “Who died exactly?” and go back to their ear phones and cell phones.
Tucker Carlson recently stated, “This moment is too inherently ridiculous to continue.” This is exactly our predicament. To get out of this, most people have to go through a crisis and “step outside the noise” for a while. Then we can see what is important as compared to the cacophony of liberals arguing about things that don’t matter. Once we have done that, the two most important principles to get right are as follows.
Since all of us in the West grown up in the world of Liberalism, we will have trouble seeing that the first can exist without the second. However, the opposite is true. The first can exist if and only if we say “no” to the second. We will either be Christian or we will be Liberal. We cannot have liberty in a world where both co-exist. They cannot do so peacefully. One will seek to destroy the other. The good news is that the Gospel was given for the purpose of winning. The Lord himself promised us, “The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church” (Matthew 16:19) and “Lo, I am with you always even until the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20).
We can defeat Liberalism, but only if we are bold enough to say, “No,” to all forms of modernity and then tell the Truth.
]]>There are nearly as many definitions of Liberalism and Modernism as there are forms of propaganda in the wide world. As the Church uses these terms, however, they may be roughly defined as follows:
Liberalism: The belief that the human person is the ultimate source of freedom and goodness, and so must be emancipated not only from restrictive political and social systems but from the Church, religion and even God Himself. Thus liberalism is above all a spiritual rebellion that is almost inevitably combined with Modernism.
Modernism: The belief that human culture, as the lens through which reality is generally perceived, is actually determinative of truth, such that all convictions must be adapted to satisfy the values of contemporary culture. In practice, this will always be the dominant culture, that is, the fashionable culture of the elites who have the greatest power to form public opinion.
Perhaps the most obvious thing about the combination of these two terms is the following paradox: Once liberals begin to regard human emancipation in terms of Modernism, they necessarily embrace regulatory and even totalitarian political mechanisms to ensure that everyone is properly “liberated”. The State becomes the surrogate for God, but unlike God, the State does not respect human freedom. ~ Dr. Jeff Mirus, In a nutshell: Liberalism and Modernism
The mistake of Liberalism is the idea that we have individual rights. We do not. We have human rights based on God’s Creation ordinances (Genesis 1-3) and the positive affirmations of the Ten Commandments.
Commandments #1-3. The right to worship the one true God and revere His name as holy
Commandment #4. The right to rest on the Sabbath and freedom from perpetual bondage and slavery
Commandment #5. The right to bear and raise children to respect God and parents
Commandment #6. The right to life
Commandment #7. The right to be married to one spouse of the opposite sex and preserve the sanctity of marriage
Commandment #8. The right to get wealth and property, the right to work
Commandment #9. All rights pertaining to a fair trial when accused of sin (church) or a crime (civil).
Commandment #10. The right to work in the pursuit of property lawfully without being subject to guile or conspiracy (not just the pursuit of happiness, but the pursuit of property).
Thus all human rights are Law related. In turn, all biblical laws are based on one of the Creation ordinances — the first principles.
]]>Why the US Does Not Want the Ukraine War to End is a fair treatment of the complex history of the Russia-Ukraine saga over the past 30 years. I recommend this video highly. I don’t agree with every point this YouTuber makes, but it is well-produced and more cogent and succinct than anything I have seen for its length. It is either a good primer or a refresher depending on your knowledge level of the Ukraine conflict. The thesis of the video is that this is a war the West wanted. NATO wanted a pro-western government in Ukraine, not to help Ukrainians, but to weaken and break up Russia. Therefore, the Western alliance does not want the war to end until this is accomplished. At the same time, the video does not whitewash the motivations and actions of Russia, but suggests that Putin’s actions are not those of a madman, but those of a reasonable president trying to protect Russia’s interests. The video rightly points out that America used our own military force to prevent Soviet influence near our borders many times in the past.
I have been to Russia and Ukraine 12 times since 1991. I learned about each of the Ukrainian presidential elections both through the news and firsthand conversations with Ukrainians. I was initially supportive of the Orange Revolution in 2004, which eventually brought Viktor Yushchenko to power. It seemed to be a people’s movement, but in truth both presidents on either side of that conflict, Yushchenko and Yanukovych, ended up being incredibly corrupt. I also followed the changes after 2014 to the recent Euro-Maidan presidents, Poroshenko and Zelenskyy, and the beginning of the war in the Donbass region. The common denominator is that each president promised to end corruption in Ukraine and better the economic situation. Each invariably ended up being at least as corrupt as his predecessor.
It is easy for an American to get confused between the names, corruption scandals, and alignments of the various presidents. Therefore, this video does a great job summarizing the politics with simple graphics that explain that the current conflict between the West and Russia with Ukraine as a proxy. The hybrid war began not in 2022, or 2014, or 2008, or even 2004, but in 1991. In fact, we could go back to 1917 and earlier centuries, but that would be a much longer video. A fuller history, an alternative to what we hear in the western media, is the Ukraine on Fire Series which I also highly recommend.
Although the Ukrainian people existed for many centuries Ukraine was never an independent country prior to statehood 1991. Before the modern era, the people we now know as “Ukrainians” were part of several Muslim Khanates and later the western regions were part of Poland-Lithuania, Austria-Hungary and Romania. Then after 1917 in the aftermath of WWI, there were two Ukrainian states for a brief time. These were not fully independent, but were cobbled together as communist “project” states of the Russians (the Ukrainian People’s Republic) and the Austrians (the West Ukrainian People’s Republic).
There were always ethnic Ukrainians as part of “Greater Russia,” just as there were Romani (Gypsies), Udmurts, Komi, Tatars, Chuvash, etc., each with their own ethnic culture and language. Russia is home to people from at least 190 ethnic groups and counts more than 20 different republics within its borders. Many of these smaller republics, although part of Russia, are federalized with a greater degree of autonomy to help facilitate local ethnic affairs. Ukrainians are in fact the third largest ethnic group in the Russian Federation today (after Russians and Tatars). Historically, they were the largest group during the centuries when Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire.
Likewise large enclaves of Russians and other nationalities currently live within the nation of Ukraine. Therefore, at the breakup of the Soviet Union, Alexander Solzhenitsyn and many others saw the folly of treating the Ukrainian Socialist Republic of the Soviet Union as one block without local referendums for each region to decide their destiny. In a previous article, I summarized the views of Solzhenitsyn who wrote a book in 1991, Rebuilding Russia, proposing a way forward, which would allow Ukrainian independence votes by region instead of nationally in order to avoid bloodshed.
The manner in which parts of Russia were ceded to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine under Stalin and Khrushchev did not foresee the offer to Ukraine in the 1990s to join NATO and align against Russia. US and European meddling is only part of the problem, but even that would not have been a cause for war if the the ethnic Russians had been given the right to self-determination as guaranteed in the UN charter — at very least some sort of sovereignty or federalization in the east and south. It is not so simple to say where the lines of the nation-state of Ukraine should have been drawn. It’s a Gordian Knot that can’t be solved with ease. There exists a legal agreement according the the Minsk Accords, but this was never implemented due to faults on both sides — and the video explains why.
Meddling by the West took the form of turning the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists into violent militias and a political movement as an attempt to destabilize Russia, This was the main cause of the war. The conflict won’t be solved until Western leaders acknowledge that mistake. The video is fair in that it agrees that there is corruption on all sides. That is a historical fact.
The video gives the varying points of view. Russia of course wanted Ukraine aligned with itself to serve its own interests. Since a large part of Ukraine is Russian, this seems more of a natural alignment. Except for several heavily Ukrainian oblasts in the west bordering EU countries, Poland, Hungary and Romania, most of Ukraine is historically, culturally and economically aligned with Russia. There cannot be a stable Ukraine without Russia or a stable Russia without parts of Ukraine aligned with it. The video does a good job of explaining the dilemma between east and west.
The difference between Russian and Ukrainian nationality is not distinct as it is blurred. Many people have both Russian and Ukrainian ancestry. Beyond the language and some cultural differences, the difference has become determined mainly by politics. Up until recently, most of the country was allowed to be bilingual. In fact, nationality was legally determined in the Soviet Union in a different way than it is now. A Soviet citizen could choose their nationality on the basis of where his or her parents were born. This nationality would appear in their passport, but now all people living in Ukraine are expected to assimilate into the use of the Ukrainian language and culture. Everything Russian is banned from public life. Prior to 2004, there was not a problem with violence by Ukrainian ultra-nationalists on ethnic minorities. All groups encounter discrimination and even violence, Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Romanians, Tatars, Russians, etc.
Now there is full-fledged war. It is not between Russia and Ukraine, but between historic Russia (including parts of recently seceded Ukraine) and the collective West. The West does not want to end with peace talks until Russia is sufficiently weakened or destroyed. The practicality of that plan is shortsighted and poorly conceived. However, Western ham-handedness in foreign political projects is nothing new. The US has promoted “astroturfing,” color revolutions and regime changes in dozens of nations throughout the world. Now many of these nations are turning against the US and toward the BRICS+ economic alliance. The problem with attempting this within Russia is that it is not a backwards country that can be easily manipulated by the West. It is the richest nation in natural resources by far. It has the first or second most powerful military, the ninth largest GDP, the ninth largest population, etc. This is not some third world country of the global south in which we can force regime change and install a puppet regime of the West.
The only glaring factual error that the video makes is in stating that the “whole world” is against Russia and therefore this dooms the Russian economy. This is out of date. The video shows a picture of the 15 percent that make up the European and Anglo-Saxon states as the “whole world.” Meanwhile, the 85 percent are now aligning with one or more of the BRICS+ nations in a multipolar world — even countries like Japan and South Korea are jumping western alignment ship for economic and geographical reasons.
Nations that win wars nearly always become stronger and more prosperous afterwards. Nations that lose wars become weaker and less prosperous. As the United States has already all but lost yet another proxy war, we ought to be aware of the worldwide populist uprising. Populism and nationalism will be synergized by global de-dollarization and the destabilization of western economies — both trends feeding of one another.
The current crisis could either be a good thing for America. It might birth a movement that brings reform and turns our nation back to God, family, church and patriotism — or it could cement liberal modernism and further destroy the moral fabric of our republic.
I am persuaded that Liberalism as a political theory has collapsed and we are now in an era of post-liberal postmodernism where everything weird and unnatural is celebrated in the strongholds of politics, media, entertainment and education. This is the time of the scary monsters when we need to war against all forms of modernism and postmodernism to restore our once great Christian civilization in America.
]]>I have been to Russia and Ukraine 12 times since 1991. I learned about each of the Ukrainian presidential elections both through the news and firsthand conversations with Ukrainians. I was initially supportive of the Orange Revolution in 2004, which eventually brought Viktor Yushchenko to power. It seemed to be a people’s movement, but in truth both presidents on either side of that conflict, Yushchenko and Yanukovych, ended up being incredibly corrupt. I also followed the changes after 2014 to the current Euro-Maidan presidents, Poroshenko and Zelenskyy, and the beginning of the war in the Donbas regions. The common denominator is that each president promised to end corruption in Ukraine and better the economic situation. Each invariably ended up being at least as corrupt as his predecessor.
]]>The God-given right to life of every human being at any stage of development shall be recognized and protected. This provision shall be deemed to supersede any other inconsistent provisions.
WHEREAS the Constitution of the State of Florida guarantees: “All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.”
WHEREAS under the Constitution of the State of Florida, the rights of all natural persons ought to extend to each human being from biological beginnings to natural death.
WHEREAS the framers of the United States Constitution included an important provision to the individual states in Article IV, Section 4 to guarantee that the blessings of life and liberty would indeed be secured and protected: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
WHEREAS the Tenth Amendment more clearly defined that those powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the various states or to the people, although adding nothing to the Constitution as originally ratified: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
WHEREAS in order to resist unjust laws that originate as powers not enumerated by the United States Constitution, the original intent of our nation’s founders was that the individual states may follow the doctrine of nullification.
WHEREAS the United States Constitutional provision of nullification carries with it the force of state; cannot be legally repealed by Congress without amending the United States Constitution; cannot be lawfully abolished by an executive order; and cannot be overruled by the United States Supreme Court if the people in the state reject said Court’s opinion.
WHEREAS whenever the federal government exceeds its constitutional limits and begins to oppress the citizens of a state, that state’s legislature is duty-bound to interpose its power and prevent the federal government from victimizing its people.
WHEREAS the Florida Legislature desires to accept such responsibility by accepting not all United States federal government legislation, and not all United States Supreme Court precedents, but only those provisions that are consistent with the God-given right to life and liberty of all judicially innocent human persons.
WHEREAS the United State Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was wrongly decided and is deemed unconstitutional both under the United States Constitution, as was recently decided in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 19-1392 597 U.S. (2022), and the Florida Constitution as it deprives an entire class of natural persons, the preborn human being, of their right to life.
WHEREAS the State of Florida is duty-bound to protect the lives of preborn human beings subsequent to overturning Roe v. Wade.
WHEREAS the State of Florida will enact and enforce laws that recognize and defend the preborn as Persons with the right to life.
Therefore,
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
Section 1. This act may be cited as “The Florida Personhood Act”
The Florida State Legislature finds as follows regarding the sanctity of life:
(A) The July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence is one of the Organic Laws of the United States of America found in the United States Code.
(B) All persons are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, the foremost of which is the right to life.
(C) The Preamble to the Constitution of the State of Florida contains the peoples’ acknowledgment of God as the source of constitutional liberty, saying: “We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.”
(D) Personhood is God-given rather than an endowment of the State. All human beings, irrespective of age, race, sex, health, function, or condition of dependency, including unborn children at every stage of their biological development regardless of the method of creation, are created in the image of God and therefore have an equal right to life.
(E) The State of Florida has an absolute duty to establish and enforce laws that protect the lives of all judicially innocent persons, which is a primary responsibility of civil government.
(F) A human being is a unique person, a distinct person, and the same person at every stage of biological life, with unique genetic information, at every stage of their biological development regardless of the method of creation, and therefore asserts a compelling state interest in the protection of the rights to life, due process, and equal protection, from the beginning of the biological development of that human being onward.
(G) The right to life for each human being, including unborn children, is “endowed by their Creator,” “Almighty God,” at every stage of their biological development regardless of the method of creation until natural death.
(H) The words “person,” “human,” and “human being,” mean a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of biological development.
(I) The rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, that no person, including unborn children, shall be deprived of life without due process of law nor denied the equal protection of the laws at every stage of their biological development regardless of the method of creation.
(J) This section shall apply to Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Florida, as well as to Section(s) ## of the Florida Statutes.
Section 2.
(A) Nothing in this article shall be construed to prohibit a licensed physician from performing a medical procedure or providing medical treatment designed or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman. However, the physician shall make reasonable medical efforts under the circumstances to preserve both the life of the mother and the life of the preborn human being or preborn human beings in a manner consistent with accepted medical standards. Under such circumstances, the accidental or unintentional injury or death to the preborn human being is not a violation of this article. The threat of the death of a pregnant woman must not be based on a diagnosis or claim of a mental or emotional condition of the pregnant woman or a diagnosis or claim that the pregnant woman is at risk of taking her own life. The provisions of this section must not be construed to authorize the intentional killing of a preborn human being.
(B) Nothing in this article shall be construed to prohibit contraception. As used in this subsection, “contraception” is defined as the prevention of fertilization.
(C ) Nothing in this article shall be construed to prohibit in vitro fertilization or assisted reproductive technology provided the process does not involve the intentional killing of a preborn human being.
(D) The authority to regulate in vitro fertilization and assisted reproductive technology procedures is reserved by the Legislature.
Section 3. This article is enacted pursuant to the power reserved to this State under the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Section 4. This act shall be deemed to supersede any other inconsistent provisions in Florida state law and United States Federal law.
Section 5. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
Personhood Florida provides the opportunity to change the state constitution with an amendment protecting all life from biological beginnings to natural death by empowering teachable citizens to maintain a biblical and uncompromising voice, by pressing voters and politicians to action in defending life, and by moving Florida toward a culture of life.
]]>The God-given right to life of every human being at any stage of development shall be recognized and protected. This provision shall be deemed to supersede any other inconsistent provisions.
]]>Personhood Florida, Protect Human Life Florida, and dozens of biblically based sanctity of life organizations and leaders have teamed up to promote the Human Life Protection Amendment!
This is a state constitutional amendment initiative recognizing the God-given right to life of the preborn individual. It defines by law a “preborn individual” as a human person at any stage of development. The amendment would recognize and protect all innocent preborn human life from conception and is the only active pro-life citizen initiative currently registered with the Florida Division of Elections.
In the past, Personhood Florida sponsored the Personhood Amendment in our state. Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade according to the Dobbs decision on June 24th, 2022, there has been a new wave of support for a citizen-led initiative to abolish abortion in our state. We have now joined in Christian unity with several organizations to push for a state constitutional amendment to protect all preborn human life without exception.
We are excited that our dream of seeing these precious children protected by love and by law is that much closer to becoming a reality!
Why a state constitutional amendment?
Currently, under Florida law there are dozens of state regulations allowing abortion. These are under Chapter 390 Termination of Pregnancies. These state statutes allow different types of abortion. The exceptions and regulations go on for pages and pages.
Prior to Roe v. Wade, the only exception for abortion in the state of Florida was a life threatening situation for the mother. Ironically, if no compromised laws had been passed, under the recent Dobbs decision that overturned Roe, Florida could have quickly returned to being essentially an abortion free state.
However, we can undo years of laws with exceptions with one amendment. The collaborative language of our proposed amendment states that “all laws, judicial precedents, and acts contrary to this section shall be null, void, and deemed repealed to the extent of any conflict with this section.”
If this amendment were to be approved by Florida voters, no state law and no state Supreme Court decision, past or present, would be able to supersede the constitutional recognition and legal protection of the life of a preborn child.
Rather than leave it to our legislature to write more laws regulating abortion, we the people of the state of Florida, can end the killing of the preborn with one amendment!
We cannot fail unless we fail to try!
Personhood amendments have been voted on five times in three states in the past decade – Colorado, Mississippi and North Dakota. Although several of the votes were close, no state won the majority needed to amend their state constitution. However, this was not a failure.
One positive result was in changing the terms of the abortion debate. Rather than centering on a woman’s right to choose and opting for the regulation of abortion, the conversation in these states has shifted to recognizing the Personhood of the preborn child.
Further, in every state where Personhood amendments were tried, more people got involved with efforts to protect the preborn. Crisis pregnancy counseling grew more than ever before, more people got involved on the grassroots level, solid candidates were elected to office, and abortion rates went down in every state.
We even began to see major political candidates switch to a “no exceptions” stance on ending the gruesome practice of child sacrifice. The focus has switched from that of a secular women’s rights issue to the unabashed biblical truth that these are little baby boys and girls made in the image of God.
Further, the effect was nationwide! Many states near to the places where state Personhood amendments were tried now have total or near-total abortion bans. These states include Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.
We recognize that some of these laws are not 100 percent perfect, but several states no longer have operating abortion mills and more states are expected to abolish abortion in the near future.
There is no doubt that the paradigm has shifted from “pro-life with exceptions” to the “total abolition of abortion without compromise.”
We will not stop until every preborn child is protected!
Yes, it will be difficult to get on the ballot in Florida. Ours is one of only three states in the nation to require a 60 percent or higher supermajority requirement for voter approval of a constitutional amendment. It is an extremely high bar. We would initially need to get close to a million valid signatures to qualify for ballot placement. However, we believe that Florida is a forerunner state. What happens here affects the rest of the nation. Even a near miss in Florida at under 60 percent of the vote would embolden other states where the threshold is lower and they will pass Personhood amendments to their state constitutions.
If we try, we trust that eventually God will give us the victory.
We need to work hard to raise the finances, expand our networks, and continue to increase our grassroots support to win. Passing a state constitutional amendment by a citizen initiative, while a difficult process, can be done.
Yes, it will be a hard battle, but we cannot fail to try!
One positive statistic is that in the entire history of citizen initiatives in the state of Florida, the 44 initiatives that gained ballot access with a grassroots signature effort (those not placed on the ballot by the state legislature) have been well received by Florida voters. The success rate once on the ballot is 77 percent, with 34 of them having been approved to date. As we go out into the streets, we are stirring lively discussion, changing minds, and winning hearts. We have also seen many people choose life for their preborn children and profess Christ as their Lord and Savior. As we live out a faithful witness, we do not believe we can fail.
Now is the time to go on the offense!
We cannot spend our time on defense trying to keep things from happening. We are God’s people who are called to run to the battle. We will need every bit of time, energy, focus, and financial resources to mount a serious effort to protect all preborn human life.
Won’t you join with us to protect the preborn in the state of Florida?
You can volunteer as a petitioner, give financial support, connect us with like-minded friends and family, and help us spread news of this citizen-led initiative across the state.
Personhood Florida, Protect Human Life Florida, and dozens of biblically based sanctity of life organizations and leaders have teamed up to promote the Human Life Protection Amendment!
This is a state constitutional amendment initiative recognizing the God-given right to life of the preborn individual. It defines by law a “preborn individual” as a human person at any stage of development. The amendment would recognize and protect all innocent preborn human life from conception and is the only active pro-life citizen initiative currently registered with the Florida Division of Elections.
]]>