Posted on 08/20/2009 12:30:40 PM PDT by IbJensen
As observers continue to decipher the meaning of Benedict XVI’s latest encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, all appear to agree that the passage of note, the passage that may prove historic in its implications, is the one that is already becoming known as the “world political authority” paragraph:
In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority. . . .
Could Benedict be in favor of world government, as many now believe? Taken in the context of papal writings since the dawn of the UN, as well as Benedict’s own opinions, recorded both before and after his election as pope, the passage gains another meaning. It is in reality a profound challenge to the UN, and the other international organizations, to make themselves worthy of authority, of the authority that they already possess, and worthy of the expansion of authority that appears to be necessary in light of the accelerated pace of globalization.
It is true that Benedict believes that a transnational organization must be empowered to address transnational problems. But so has every pope since John XXIII, who wrote in 1963 that “Today the universal common good presents us with problems which are worldwide in their dimensions; problems, therefore, which cannot be solved except by a public authority with power, organization, and means coextensive with these problems, and with a worldwide sphere of activity. Consequently the moral order itself demands the establishment of some such form of public authority.”
But such an authority has been established, and we have lived with it since 1948, and in many ways it has disappointed. So Benedict turns John XXIII’s formulation on its head: Morality no longer simply demands a global social order; now Benedict underscores that this existing social order must operate in accord with morality. He ends his own passage on world authority by stating that “The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order. . . .” Note the phrase “at last.”
What went wrong? According to Benedict, a world authority worthy of this authority would need “to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth.” The obvious implication is that the current UN has not made this commitment.
To understand how the UN has failed, we must delve into the rest of the encyclical. According to Benedict, the goal of all international institutions must be “authentic integral human development.” This human development must be inspired by truth, in this case, the truth about humanity. Pursuit of this truth reveals that each human being possesses absolute worth; therefore, authentic human development is predicated on a radical defense of life.
This link is made repeatedly in Caritas in Veritate. “Openness to life is at the center of true development. . . . The acceptance of life strengthens moral fiber and makes people capable of mutual help. . . . They can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and individual.”
To some, it must seem startling how often Benedict comes back to life in an encyclical ostensibly dedicated to economics and globalization. But this must be understood as Benedict’s effort to humanize globalization. It can be seen as the global application of John Paul II’s own encyclical on life, Evengelium Vitae.
Without this understanding of the primacy of life, international development is bound to fail: “Who could measure the negative effects of this kind of mentality for development? How can we be surprised by the indifference shown towards situations of human degradation, when such indifference extends even to our attitude towards what is and is not human?”
Throughout the encyclical, Benedict is unsparing in the ways in which the current international order contributes to this failure; no major front in the war over life is left unmentioned, from population control, to bioethics, to euthanasia.
But none of this should come as a surprise. Since at least as far back as the UN’s major conferences of the 1990s—Cairo and Beijing—Benedict has known that the UN has adopted a model of development conformed to the culture of death. He no doubt assisted John Paul II in his successful efforts to stop these conferences from establishing an international right to abortion-on-demand. At the time, Benedict said, “Today there is no longer a ‘philosophy of love’ but only a ‘philosophy of selfishness.’ It is precisely here that people are deceived. In fact, at the moment they are advised not to love, they are advised, in the final analysis, not to be human. For this reason, at this stage of the development of the new image of the new world, Christians . . . have a duty to protest.”
Now, in his teaching role as pope, Benedict is not simply protesting but offering the Christian alternative, the full exposition of authentic human development. Whether or not the UN can meet the philosophical challenges necessary to promote this true development remains uncertain. But it should not be assumed that Benedict is sanguine; after all, he begins his purported embrace of world government with a call for UN “reform,” not expansion.
Scripture, IIRC in the KJV
mentions
he who restrains is removed
That could be a high ranking angel. It could be Holy Spirit in some mode or form or association. Some have claimed it is the Christian Church.
I don’t believe Holy Spirit is per se totally removed from anything . . . I suspect it is by Holy Spirit that all matter and all creation and all everything is held together in functioning order.
However, Holy Spirit could be removed in terms of a given mode—e.g. INDWELLING individuals . . . those individuals could be removed . . . or a certain class or grouping of those individuals.
There could be a return to the OTestament mode of Holy Spirit . . . e.g. with the Two Tribulation WITNESSES . . . and selected other individuals but not so widely INDWELT.
We shall see.
I should just point out here that one’s millennial view (post-, a-, pre-) and one’s interpretive model of prophecy (historicist, preterist, futurist, idealist) are orthogonal concepts.
One can be a historicist premil or a historicist postmil. One can be a preterist amil or an historicist amil. There are many ways to mix and match.
In the final analysis, with the exception of futurist dispensationalism, the question of the person of antichrist is independent of the question of one’s millennial position.
C&V, s'il vous plait?
My assumption is that post-mil posits an ever bettering world in fits and starts, and that a prior assumption is that the AC & tribulation are already past us.
If that is incorrect, then please correct it. I would like to understand the position correctly.
That article is a two-fer for the papacy. It highlights an idiot Protestant congregation observing Ramandan while publicizing a book that deflects the centuries-old “anti-Christ” attention from Rome onto the Muslims.
Idiot is right! - the “emerging church” is custom made for deception.
The ‘type’ antichrist of AD 70 most likely was of eastern descent, because the ‘Roman’ army that did the destruction was comprised of almost entirely local natives, so the idea that the ultimate AC would be a muzzie fits fairly well.
The eschatology of the Jews and the Muzzies is essentially the same, so there is in reality a strong chance that both of them would accept the same ‘savior.’
PING TO 648
The numbers I see say that Italy will be mostly Muslim in the next 30 years. The Italians are reproducing at the rate of 1 child per 2 parents. That means their population is halving every generation. They compensate with Muslims who are having 8 kids per couple across the now little pond called the Mediterranean.
There’ll be no need to worry about the Pope in Rome. They’ll kick him out, and Quebec is a very Roman Catholic city.
In short, it is not wise to overlook the Muslim issue.
What is the solution? It sure isn’t a campaign to convince every systemite in western culture to have more kids.
It’s real evangelism of NEW Christians in a revived Church of the Living God. And it better be a church that frowns on abortion and other conceits that prove to individuals that they are the arbiters of life and death.
Rogers’ opening description helps me to understand why so many post-mils are so in denial about present world conditions, but his description of dispensationalism is way off the mark today. Perhaps it reflects some of the earlier writers?
He seems unaware of the present “one new man” view of the flow from Hebraic worship through gentile Christinn worship to the one new man.
Of course dispensationalism is very alive and vibrant, changing as greater understanding of prophecies opens eyes. There probably isn’t one single volume currently that would describe it completely.
Certainly true, but a 'hard sell' in today's western world. The educational system is using our money to work feverishly against it.
You mean locked up within(a human) as imprisoned or merged or mixed?..
Maybe God cannot go in and out of a christians spirit/soul..
Is that what you are saying?..
Is not annointing(oil/perfume) a picture Gods presence?..
The shekinah is Gods presence..
Are you saying every christian 24/7 365 has the shekinah within them?..
I believe neither of us has the last word on Gods presence.. nor does anyone(I know of)..
If you know more than me about Gods presence..
I'm all ears.. even to suppositions.. Could be a groovey side bar..
My experience is periodic presence of God..
I've experienced God within but he/it leaves..
If you have greater(or different) experience, I'm willing to learn..
The assumption is incorrect. The view is not a necessary one for postmillennialism. For example, many of the theologians at Old Princeton were postmil, like Charles Hodge, BB Warfield, Archibald Alexander, and others. Hodge believed in a future antichrist whose timing coincided with the release of Satan for a short time at the close of the 1000 years (Rev. 20:7). His views coincide with those of Jonathan Edwards. Edwards saw the defeat of antichrist at the beginning of the millennium.
Hodge saw the future this way:
1. The universal diffusion of the Gospel; or, as our Lord expresses it, the ingathering of the elect; this is the vocation of the Christian Church. 2. The conversion of the Jews, which is to be national. As their casting away was national, although a remnant was saved; so their conversion may be national, although some may remain obdurate. 3. The coming of Antichrist. (Systematic Theology, Vol. III, p. 792 quoted in Princeton and the Millennium)Warfield seems to view antichrist as a past phenomenon, not necessarily an individual, but a spirit of the age.
While it is true that many contemporary postmils are preterists, the positions are independent.
Alive and vibrant, or built on shifting sand? The theories change because the underlying foundation of dispensationalism, current events, keeps changing.
How is your first paragraph distinguishable from amillenialism?
No definitely not! Current events continue in the same pattern as they hav for the past half century.
What is changing is the understanding of the importance of Hebrew culture and tradions to the proper understanding of prophecies. Far more important than had ever been imagined. Everything is becoming easier to understand.
That is a good question. There has been much debate as to where postmillennialism ends and amillennialism begins (or vice versa). Many of the Reformed church fathers have been claimed by both sides based on their writings, which ones get emphasized and interpreted.
The difference between postmil and traditional amil is the emphasis (or lack thereof) on necessary progress in the advance of the gospel. Postmils says there will be based on the Bible, amils say may or may not but the Bible doesn't come down on the side of progress.
Some have labeled themslves optimistic amils saying they believe there will be progress, but again they do not do so based on any explicit interpretation of the Bible. They are just optimistic, humanly speaking.
They do? Then the interpreters are doing a lousy job. Russia is certainly not the thread to global stability that it was back in the days of The Late Great Planet Earth. Lybia is a impotent pile of mush. The antichrist was "alive and well on planet earth", but he is getting pretty long in the tooth by now. The Revived Roman Empire, aka Common Market, aka European Economic Community, aka "just call me the EU" is not exactly the entity described by past prophecy pundits. Now, with the shift away from Europe to Islam that has been making the headlines, new (unsubstantiated) theories are being advanced that the antichrist will be a Muslim.
It's all a futurist scam. Wait long enough and the emphasis will change again and again and ...
Everything is becoming easier to understand.
Then how come the outcome isn't changing at all, just a series of wrong predictions. Relying on a bunch of unbelieving rabbis to help you interpret the Bible will get you nowhere.
As usual, your general level of understanding of events is lacking the necessary depth. Small fluctuations seem to be throwing you for a loop. Actually Russia is a far greater threat today than they were 20 years ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.