Progressive Reduction … Progressive Advance and the Postmillennial hope

The movement of Scripture seems to require a postmillennial eschatology.

Think about it. The Old Covenant moves from the Universal to the Particular after the fall. After the fall God’s salvation design is towards all men, but after the flood and after Babel that design is particularized to one people (Israel). From there the failure of Israel, like the failure of mankind prior to the flood, means an even more progressive reduction moving to “the remnant” and then finally culminating in this progressive reduction in the election of Jesus Christ to be God’s representative for the Redemption of His people. However, with the resurrection of Christ, we find the reversal of the previous progressive reduction to a progressive advance and broadening of redemption. What had been, prior to the arrival of Christ, a redemptive movement of the many to the one, with the resurrection the redemptive energy reverses and is now from the one to the many. We are still looking at election and representation, but the further salvific development unfolds so that from the center reached in the resurrection of Christ the way no longer leads from the many to the One but rather, as seen in the incorporating of the Nations, the movement of Redemption is progressively advancing from the one to the many. Consistently traced out this pattern and trajectory requires a belief in postmillennialism.

This hour-glass movement of Redemption (progressive reduction and narrowing to progressive advance and broadening) is most clearly articulated in Galatians 3:6 – 4:7. In that passage St. Paul begins with the promise to Abraham and his seed and reveals how ultimately the promise is to the Christ (3:16) who effectuates the ransom by His substitutionary death (4:5). This vicarious atonement results in the broadening of Redemption’s reach as all men and people may now become descendants of Abraham (3:26, 29) by faith alone in Christ alone.  All may become “sons and heirs” (4:4-7) through baptism.

Maybe Warfield’s “Universal Postmillennialism” was correct?

In an interesting aside one can also see this double helix hourglass movement in the Christian measuring of time by way of metaphor. Before Christ (BC) the years are numbered in a progressive reduction. However, with the arrival of Christ (AD) the numbering of the years continues to climb progressively year by year. This becomes an excellent illustration for the way that the first Christians measured redemptive time. The center and focal point is Christ and with Christ time is reoriented with the Christ event. 

 

Obama’s Misreading of History

“We are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism, or ethnic identity or tribalism that is built around “an us and a them,” and I will never apologize for saying that the future of humanity and the future of the world is going to be defined by what we have in common, as opposed to those things that separate us and ultimately lead us into conflict. Take Europe, We know what happens when Europeans start dividing themselves up and emphasizing their differences and seeing a competition between various countries in a zero-sum way. The 20th century was a bloodbath.”

Barack Obama

If you ever wanted to have a more egregious misreading of History you would have to look long and hard to find one more errant than this one.

It was not Nationalism that created WW II. In point of fact, it was letting loose Bolshevik Internationalism that created WW II.

Woodrow Wilson, the Internationalist, by his boneheaded actions in WW I paved the way for the Bolshevik Internationalists to come to power. Without Wilson’s meddling in Europe, the nations in Europe would have settled their war just as the Nations had been settling wars for centuries in Europe, by negotiated peace.

However, Wilson had to stick his creepy Internationalist nose into Europe. Then he had to use US Troops to protect the Soviet Reds railroad in Russia, freeing up Red Troops to polish off the Christian White and Green Russian armies. Wilson’s actions in World War I bathed Europe in blood because those actions empowered the blood letters of the next 70 years.

Then FDR, the next Internationalist, overturned the protocol of the 4 prior US Presidents and gave diplomatic recognition to the Internationalists in Russia, thus giving them International credibility.

It was the Bolshevik Internationalists who had created a Comintern to spread Bolshevik Internationalism across the globe with the same intent as Obama … to create a New World Order as run by the International Bolsheviks in both New York and Moscow.

It wasn’t Nationalism that bloodied the 20th century. It was the damn pestilent Internationalism that let loose oceans of blood. The same Internationalism that Obama has been a creature of.

Obama’s whole presidency can be described as being built around “an us vs. them,” mentality. It is the height of hypocrisy for him to lecture anybody about that particular danger.

Finally, Obama insists that humanity needs to build on what they have in common. This is the old “Brotherhood of all men” chestnut that has been debunked a million times. All men are not Brothers, if only because of their differing faiths. Those who believe in ordered liberty have nothing in common with the International Marxists with their New World Order agenda.

Symbol Change

Judges 6:5 That night the Lord said to him, “Take your father’s bull, and the second bull seven years old, and pull down the altar of Baal that your father has, and cut down the Asherah that is beside it 26 and build an altar to the Lord your God on the top of the stronghold here, with stones laid in due order.

Studying the book of Judges right now and in Judges we see how unfaithful Israel had built altars to Baal as opposed to previous generations who had erected altars to “I AM” thus communicating who the people and the land were being given over to. I was struck with the importance of those altars as symbols and declarations of ownership.

When we tear down old symbols and replace them with new symbols we are, like the Israelites of old, giving ourselves, our children and our land over to different gods. The tearing down of a flag or a monument and the raising of a new flag or new monument is a significant happening. What you are witnessing is the gods being changed out.

In the last 100 years, we have seen quite a bit of this. When you do any reading on the fall of Czarist Russia and the rise of Communism you note that the Communist went whole hog on this very point. They not only tore down Churches. The Communists changed those Churches usage from houses of worship to places where pigs were housed. The Communists changed the Churches from places where the soul could find relief to latrines where a different kind of relief was found. The Communists after the revolution went on a rampage tearing down old symbols and erecting new ones. Out with the old God. In with the new gods.

When the Soviet Union fell the process was reversed. I clearly remember many scenes of statues of Stalin and Lenin being pulled down by cranes. When “Desert Storm” was finished one of the clearest images of victory was the pulling down of a statue of Saddam Hussein.  Out with the old god. In with the new gods.

Now in our country, we have been experiencing the very same thing. First, it was the Confederate flag desecrated and hidden away. Recently, I read a longish piece on how it is the Gadsen flag that has been determined as “racist” and no longer can be tolerated in the public square. Statuary of our ancestors is being removed in favor of the ancestors of an alien and strange people. Out with Christianity. In with the new gods.

Whenever you find this happening you are witnessing a religious attack on the people. Where this religious attack is successful you are witnessing a people being conquered. In the book of Judges, the people had been conquered by Baal as witnessed by all those new altars built to Baal. In Czarist Russia the Christian Russians had been conquered by the Jewish Bolsheviks as witnessed by removal of their Christian Churches. Today White Western Christians are being conquered by the enemies of Christ and the evidence of that is the removal of our symbols in favor of the symbols of our enemies.

The old West — The West of Christendom — is under siege and most Christians aren’t even aware that they and their undoubted catholic Christian faith is under attack.

The Subterfuge of Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address … Part 3

L – 1st – I

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”

Bret untangles,

Lincoln is giving us poetry here and not reason and he depended upon the poetry to create a sentiment that was not examined by rationality.

Looked at closely Lincoln is arguing here that the whole (the Union) is older than the document that gave birth to the whole. Lincoln ignores that the Unions formed by each successive document was a different Union then the Union that preceded it. The Union shaped by the Articles of Association was a different Union as birthed by the Declaration of Independence was different than the Union formed by the Articles of Confederation was different from the Union formed in 1787.  The fact that these were different Unions is established by the fact that different bylaws governed each Union. Each document gave birth to a different Union even though the parties might have been the same.

If the same 13 people enter into different contracts several times the Union of those 13 people is a different Union each time as dependent upon the new contract they enter into each time. Each new Union obviates the previous one and creates a new Union.

Lincoln is clearly in error when he says that the Union preceded the Constitution. He may have been correct if he had said, “a series of Unions preceded the Constitution.” For Lincoln the same mystical presence was always present to inhabit whatever new union was struck upon. He needed this idea to advance his duplicitous purposes.

The Union was not older than the Constitution that formed it.

2.) Even the idea of forming “a more perfect Union,” implies that there was a previous Union that this new and different Union supplants that was less perfect than this new and different Union now newly and uniquely formed by the Constitution.

Major Kudos for Lincoln’s ability to take an absurd idea and turn it into a poetry that still convinces people. If I am ever to be judged by a jury of my peers I’d want someone with Lincoln’s ability with the use of  language to conceal to represent me.

L – 1st – I

But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

Bret deconstructs,

1.) Of course the first paragraph depends upon Lincoln’s idea that “The Union” preceded the Constitution and that has already been dismissed as unfounded and novel. Remember “The Union” is Lincoln’s mystical poetic entity. There was no “The Union.” There was only a series of Unions. Lincoln assumes what he has not proven except by magical linguistic hocus pocus.

2.) No where in any of the documents mentioned is there any idea that eternal perpetuity is a mark of approaching perfection.

3.) Touching the second paragraph above,

Once again, that the South was in insurrection and revolution was only true if one assumes that Lincoln was correct. On the contrary, if one assumes that secession is legal (as we have demonstrated) then insurrection and revolution is what that which Lincoln and the North were guilty. The North was guilty of insurrection and revolution against the Constitution.

4.) Keep in mind that Lincoln here is saying that the authority of the United States is pre-eminent over the authority of the States which created the Federal Government in keeping with very precise delegated and enumerated powers.  This is like saying a co-op, created by a group of 13 pair of parents, delegated only with the task of litter clean up has the authority to tell certain parents they can’t opt out of the co-op once the co-op has determined that the co-op is responsible, without amendment of the original co-op agreement, the role of telling the parents how to raise their children.

5.) We would not that in that second paragraph above Lincoln is putting the case as emphatically as George III and his ministers formulated the law when dealing with the original thirteen colonies. If Lincoln is right here then the original thirteen colonies were in insurrection and revolution when they departed England.

L -1st – I

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

Bret responds,

1.) Obviously, the “Laws of the Union” can not extend to those who no longer were in the Union.

2.) Lincoln’s implied threat here is that he will pin the Union together by bayonet if the South does not come to heel. Lincoln indeed was good on his threat but the nation he saved from disunion was a different nation then before he “saved” it.

 

 

The Subterfuge of Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address … Part 2

Lincoln spends some time in his 1st Inaugural considering the issue of the “Fugitive Slave Law.”

L-1st-I,

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

Lincoln spends time here insisting that this law would be upheld and yet for a Lincoln administration to have upheld this law they would have run, face first, into the reality that the the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in 1854, had declared the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional. Other states had not gone so far as Wisconsin but they were turning a blind eye to this clause of the Constitution and it was one area in which both Northerners and Southerners were exercised about. Why should Southerners believe Lincoln’s verbiage about his commitment to the Constitution when the constituency that elected him in the North was routinely ignoring this provision of the Constitution? Would Lincoln have risked contretemps with Wisconsin in order to satisfy Southern demands on Fugitive slaves? Would Lincoln have raised an army of 70,000 to invade Wisconsin if Wisconsin refused to return Fugitive slaves per the Constitution as he did when the South, in his misplaced opinion thought the South was violating the Constitution? Would Lincoln issue an arrest warrant for the Wisconsin Supreme Court for ruling contrary to his diktat as he eventually issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger Taney because Taney dared to issue Ex-parte Merryman against Lincoln’s wishes?

No, all this language about honoring the Constitution and the Fugitive slave law was just so much political kabuki theater in order to attempt to speak to Southern concerns.

L – 1st – I

“I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”

Bret untangles this,

1.) Notice that what “universal law” Lincoln was referencing, or what it had to do with the question of the perpetuity of the union, Lincoln did not bother to explain. One would have dearly loved to have heard Lincoln to prove, from his “universal law,” how it is that union of these united States was in perpetuity.

2.) Note here that Lincoln urges the fact that no government ever provided for its own termination as a proof of his false conclusion that no government was terminable. Can you say non-sequitur?

3.) Lincoln makes a “Captain Obvious” point when he offers, “Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever.”  This could have been easily said also of the Union under the previous “Articles of Confederation.” Of course the South had no intention to continue to execute all the express provisions of the National Constitution. One suspect if Lincoln is hinting here at his revenue raising tariffs threatened by the South’s secession.

4.) Thankfully, a personage from Lincoln’s own era crushes Lincoln’s reasoning here. Here is a segment from just 12 short years prior as given by a US congressman when discussing Texas’ secession from Mexico.

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement.”

One wonders how the Lincoln of 1860 would have replied to this US Congressman’s speech from 1848?

Oh …. the US Congressmen making this 1848 case?

US Congressman, Abraham Lincoln.

L – 1st – I

“Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it–break it, so to speak–but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?”

1.) The answer to Lincoln’s question is “no.”  That “no” is the answer is seen by the conditional ratification of the Constitution by three of the original thirteen states, which carefully reserved the right of secession. They were Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island. This conditional ratification was the explicit language placed by the Constitutional Ratification of those states which insisted that said states retained the right to reverse their decision of joining the union. The fact that three of the states were allowed, by the other states, to join upon conditional ratification included a tacit understanding that secession was permissible. Naturally, the same expectation would be owned by future new states.

2.) Lincoln, in his Gettysburg, invoked the Declaration of Independence as a foundation for his reasoning of pursuing his course of illegal war against the South. As such we will appeal to the Declaration of Independence on this issue.

“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, . . .”

3.) Much more could be said here but we will round off here by invoking the 10th amendment to prove that individual states had the right to secede without all the states deciding to secede.

“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.”

Given the language of the 10th amendment the Constitution would have had to enumerate or delegate to the Federal Government the responsibility and power to stop states from seceding. This the Constitution does not do. Lincoln’s predecessor, James Buchanan understood this which is why Buchanan did nothing when South Carolina left in December of “60.”

To the contrary the US Constitution did not have to provide explicit language that allowed the states to secede since,  “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.” Secession, because unmentioned in the Constitution was a power reserved to the States.