What would it take? (response to Mr. Roger Olson)

Mr. Roger Olson, an Evangelical historical theologian who, over the past several years, has demonstrated the political intoxication of American Evangelicalism from the "never-Trump side", blogged recently about the reaction to Trump's conviction by a Manhattan jury. My main response to his question is perceived fairness. When Democrats tell you in 2016 that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted because that's prosecuting political opponents, then open an investigation in 2017 on their political opponent over "collusion with Russia" which was proven never occurred, then in 2020 complain about Trump attempting to investigate Biden, then start cheerleading over the conviction of a President, any effort to lecture the general populace on democracy, fairness, rule of law, is moot. Now, one could insist that it was a "jury of his peers" to defend said "fairness", but that ignores the fact of how Manhattan voted in 2020 (85-15 pro-Biden). This is a district where you are almost guaranteed to get a jury of your peers that's 10-2 Democrat, with strong Democrat ideologues, where Democrat bullies can bludgeon the other two to render in the desired verdict. Does that seem "fair"?

Mr. Olson also complains that Trump is a bully though. In his efforts to condemn people who still support Trump to Hell after this. Right. Trump is a bully. I've been abused by both people on the right and people on the left for solely being autistic. Now, Mr. Olson can deny my personal experience (which is called gaslighting and a form of bullying), or Mr. Olson can take my personal experience into account for why I find the left more venomous. Because even though I've been abused for my autism by people on both sides of the court, none has abused me more than those who are Biden-voters. While Joe Biden himself may not be a bully, his failure to control and stabilize his voting base is telling. When a significant portion of Biden-voters found on social media tell you things like you're a moron because you're autistic or that you shouldn't vote or be allowed to drive because you're autistic, you definitely have a much different perspective. Trump might be a bully but who he bullies are people who deserve it. I would rather have a President who refers to Biden-voters who abuse people based on their disability as human scum than what we currently have.

Mr. Olson, despite being an Evangelical, apparently has no concern for the Left-wing agenda. No one may sway his opinion on this, but I'm fully aware that Christians, even Evangelicals, are opposed to the Left-wing agenda of tax-funded trans surgeries for minors, tax-funded abortions, tax-funded overseas wars, gay marriage, abortion up to the point of birth, etc. Since Mr. Olson is a Christian and against all of that, I do find it curious he thinks the Left-wing agenda is no threat. Now, he does contradict himself a lot though. For instance, he will unequivocally support Liz Cheney who supports overseas wars but supports Robert F. Kennedy because he does not support overseas wars. To be honest, I've never honestly believed Mr. Olson was anything other than a hypocrite and a false Christian. But that's irrelevant. That the Left-wing agenda is dangerous, is something that I continue to have a lot greater concern about than anything Trump has said or done.

What would it take? What would it take to get me to see that a Trump Presidency should be feared? Okay, here's a good list: Masses of liberals who aren't ghoulishly promoting abortion but at least view it as a tragedy. Masses of liberals who can hold an intellectual conversation with someone who doesn't agree with them on a political issue. Masses of liberals who don't foolishly drift tot the argument that being an orthodox Catholic makes someone a pedophile-supporter. Masses of liberals who have a respectful tolerance for the beliefs of Christians who aren't shouting "HOMOPHOBIA!". Basically, liberals behaving like the opposite of human scum would have me much more inclined to see eye-to-eye with Mr. Olson that a second Trump term would be a very evil thing. Instead, we have just the opposite of that. I'm an independent voter and still undecided. I don't know if I want to vote for Kennedy right now or not. Kennedy has said some good things in the past. Trump had a lot of objectively good policies. What I think America needs more than a President is an exorcism and a mass conversion to orthodox Catholicism.

But I think that Mr. Olson shows overall a significant problem with Evangelicalism today. A lot of Trump's most bitter critics and supporters are among Evangelical Christians and self-described Evangelicals. Evangelicalism, without anything sacred to look toward in the Church, has effectively satiated its lack of the sacred with the sacred within the State. It's a very sad state that Evangelicalism is in. Mr. Olson's posts frequently dunk on the Evangelical Trump-supporters, and safe to say, they aren't listening to him, but he still dunks on them anyway. Never-Trumper Evangelical critics will certainly act like they aren't political but when 9 out of 10 of your posts each week are all about the political state of America and Trump, you don't really give a good impression to an outsider that you are in favor of that. Maybe it's the idea of having a god who responds to Mr. Olson's every call that makes him lose focus on the sacred. That kind of god is being advanced by many Evangelicals nowadays. I don't see much of a future for Evangelicals. For Catholics, apostasies will come and mass conversions will come. With the death of Evangelicalism as it inclines itself more toward replacing the sacred with the political, I think that we might see an objectively good thing for this country in a mass conversion to Catholicism.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose: Review

I had been wanting to watch The Exorcism of Emily Rose for a while and last night, it went on sale via the Apple Store and so I didn't hesitate to get it. I was not disappointed. It is partially a supernatural horror and partially a legal drama with a heavy focus on the question of exorcism and the overlap between the possible realm of the spiritual and the naturalist. The movie ends up pitting the spiritual against the naturalist, the Truth against the lie, and the Church against the State. It is a State that is hostile to the Church that must be convinced of the spiritual reality of the Victory of Christ over the demonic, but the State refuses to see itself as subjected to the demonic. Right from the beginning, we see the spiritual battle unfolding.

The movie opens up right after the death of Emily Rose, the titular character, most of her story will be shown in flashback during the court questionings of the witnesses involved in the story. The priest, Fr. Moore, is at the house and a medical examiner comes in to give his conclusion of cause of death to the officer. The officer then charges Fr. Moore with negligent homicide. It now must be determined who shall prosecute. The prosecution calculates the prosecutor must be a Christian, preferably a Catholic, and that he must be seen as Church-going and friendly toward the Faith. While this is a calculative decision, it is remarkable as to how in the real world such Satanic thinking operates. We are often presented with a "devoutly Christian" politician presented to us by the media who happens to have firm agreements with the faithlessness of the World because it is only under such an appearance of light that Satan could ever deceive us. How many times have we heard the drivel that Nancy Pelosi or Tim Kaine or Joe Biden are "devout Catholics" while they openly oppose every single Church doctrine?

It so happens that the prosecuting attorney picked is a regular Church-going Methodist. A Protestant. The defense attorney is an agnostic with doubts about her own past. And it is in that remarkable mixture that we are presented with the conversion power of the Church over a heresy. Throughout the course of the trial, we see the defense attorney come under both spiritual attack and receive spiritual protection in her own time of need as she becomes more and more open to the idea that there are spiritual powers that we come into conflict with. The priest, Fr. Moore, is more focused on presenting the Truth of the story of Emily Rose and he does not fear being portrayed as a madman.

Throughout the trial, we see the materialistic side presented by the prosecution to prove the case of negligent homicide. When I consider my old Protestant views and how much of it favored the idea of syncretism of the materialistic viewpoint with Christian theology even when both were incompatible, I see the manifestations of the Enlightenment mindset which Protestantism has given birth to. The "man of faith" is ultimately seen as the faithless and the skeptic. It is he who is exposed as the unbeliever. Whereas the agnostic is shown to have much more faith than she even realizes throughout the movie. It is something that many people don't recognize among our current world how faithless those they present as faithful are. It is the Satanic nature of today's world to present as faithful those who oppose the very Faith that is claimed to represent in an effort to undermine the very essence of the Faith. And that is where the real spiritual battle in the movie lies.

The priest, we find, does not intend to defend his own self. He only intends to present what he believes is the Truth. That is the very Truth of the Victory of Christ. He wants to make it known to the jury, not that he is a martyr, but that Emily Rose is a saint. He does not fight the battle but he puts the battle into the hands of God and the saints and lets them fight the battle. The movie also contains quite a theodicy in it where Emily Rose relates in a note to the priest a brief encounter she experiences with the Virgin Mary prior to her death and how it is in that which she ultimately chose to accept her continued sufferings so that others may come to belief.

The movie is based on the real life exorcism of a German girl named Annelise Michel. Annelise Michel was a college student who went through the exact same struggles as Emily Rose. It was presumed by the Church and the clergy that she was possessed and needed exorcism. The overlap between the spiritual and the material was forgotten and she was ultimately left malnourished and died. The priests involved, and her parents, were convicted of negligent homicide by German authorities. But today, the grave site of Annelise Michel is a place of pilgrimage among many German Catholics who even ask for her intercession as a saint. Through the sufferings of Annelise Michel, many have been brought to Faith. I won't reveal the ending of the trial of Fr. Moore in the movie as that would be a spoiler, but I would strongly recommend it. There are scenes that can be frightening so I would not recommend children see it, the theological message is very important.

Why modern day modalist doctrine rejects God's oneness

Divine Simplicity is a doctrine often times brought up to challenge the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity which is believed by all Christians and denied by non-Christians. I go so far to say that because, simply put, without the Trinity, there is no salvation. Not that invincible ignorance might lead to damnation. I cannot make judgments on that as I am not God, but that unless God is Triune, the doctrine of salvation as taught by the Church is incoherent. Christ's Mission on Earth was to defeat Death and Hell and He did exactly that. To those denying that He is Divine in and of Himself, they would posit that a mere mortal could do such. And to those confounding the Persons of the Trinity, well...

A large problem is there is ample literature on Trinitarian doctrine and Trinitarian apologetics and the Church's classical doctrine and teaching are often times buried in the philosophical mumbo-jumbo that modern day anti-Trinitarians accuse Trinitarians of holding. The philosophical mumbo-jumbo about the Trinity in modern day Trinitarian apologetics is rarely seen or observed in classical orthodox dogmatics. That is because that mumbo-jumbo never even occurred to the Church. I see a lot of anti-Trinitarians using the word "Godhead" to refer to the Trinity as if "Godhead" is the same as God or even the famed "Trinity Delusion" website. They mostly respond to the anti-cult hunters and the Trinitarian apologists who are divorced from classical Christian doctrine.

The Trinity Delusion website is a class example. In the article I linked, it enforces modern understanding of the terminology upheld at Nicaea to arrive at the conclusion that the "nature" cannot be a "Who" but a "What". This is echoed strongly among Trinitarian apologists and lends itself to the greatest anti-Trinitarian strawman attack ever. I used to be an anti-Trinitarian and that was the dogma I attacked. But it was not the doctrine taught in historical Christian theology. In fact, in order to understand what Trinitarians mean by "ousia" and "persons" and "beings", a knowledge of the historical controversies has to be gathered. In Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity, he has an entire chapter dedicated to proving the point that the Trinitarian doctrine is built on a graveyard of heresies. It was Sabellians who first used terms such as "ousia" and "persons" and "beings" and this was why the Church was reluctant at first to adopt Nicene orthodoxy.

And that brings us to Sabellians of the modern day who are mostly found among a group called "Oneness Pentecostals". When contending with an upholder of this modern day Oneness philosophy, a variant of modalism which insists that Jesus is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, much appeal is made to the hypostatic union doctrine. Of course, it is not. Sabellians will say that their doctrine is consistent with Divine Simplicity because they misunderstand the proper Trinitarian theology regarding the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is not a "group" deity nor is the Trinity a conglomeration of "parts" and the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not parts of God either. Rather the Father is wholly God, the Son is wholly God, and the Holy Spirit is wholly God. If God was divided into parts, this would violate Divine Simplicity. But God's Oneness is found in His infinitude. Infinity is the only thing which cannot be divided into parts. God is infinite in nature, indivisible in nature, hence, the three persons of the Trinity can never be acknowledged as divided or in parts.

But when confronted, what you will notice with "Oneness theologians" is that they frequently separate the Son from the Father. How else will they get two witnesses (John 8)? How else do they explain the baptism of Christ or the Transfiguration? Either the Son and the Father are two persons or the Son and the Father are two entities which are not united as one together. The Son would have to be a projection created by the Father. This exceeds the hypostatic union doctrine of Chalcedon. While the hypostatic union differentiated between a human nature and divine nature had by Christ, it never denied that Christ was wholly talking as God. There are many places in Scriptures where Christ conceals His deity, but He never denies it. Matthew 24:36 is often times brought up by anti-Trinitarians on both sides and the Church has never accepted the interpretation that it marks Christ as "ingorant". There are many senses of "knowing". In knowing the day and hour, Christ does, but it is not to the benefit of His Mission. He is fully aware of the events that shall lead up to that hour and so He does know the hour. What is not of His earthly Mission is to judge the world. St. Augustine writes: "That He says that the “Father knoweth,” implies that in the Father the Son also knows." (Serm. 97, 1)

Further, St. Hilary of Poitiers elaborates on the text by indicating that "in all cases, in which God declares Himself ignorant, He is not under the power of ignorance, but either it is not a fit time for speaking, or it is an economy of not acting." (On the Trinity, IX) Therefore, we see that it is in the humanity, of being contained in finitude and time, that the Son is not here eternally acting, and therefore confesses not knowing. For is in such that He is not at act that He states His ignorance in figurative language. For both the Arians and the Modalists, the omniscience of the Son is denied outright by this text. And the Modalists have such a perverse view that they will proceed to differentiate the man Jesus Christ from God. But if Jesus Christ is the Father in their theology, then Who was incarnated? And that is where the Modalist position collapses. In essence, in denying that the Son is the Father and yet insisting that Jesus is the Father and the Son, the modern day Modalist or Oneness position gives itself over to philosophical reasonings in a desperate attempt to preserve it's anti-Scriptural theology. And it splits God into two - a man and a god. Oneness doctrine therefore cannot uphold in any matter the doctrine of Divine Simplicity. For their "Oneness" of God is a Jesus that is split into the Son and the Father who are both Jesus but not each other, meaning Jesus has a conversation with Himself, declares Himself His own God, prays to Himself, declares Himself to be His own Son, etc.

Triune Oneness posits the infinitude of God which cannot be divided. The Trinity is not merely a "Godhead". The Trinity is God. And the Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. The Father is the only true God. The Son is the only true God. The Holy Spirit is the only true God. The Trinity is the only true God. Those statements cannot all be true unless they are wholly, uniquely, God, in and of themselves, and are indivisible. The "Oneness" deity is divided against himself.