Category: Uncategorized

We have been looking at the Old Testament Scriptures to limn out who it is that our Fathers were expecting when they were told of a seed to come (Genesis 3:15) who would deliver them from the fall and its consequences. We have noted that the description of that coming deliverer is the primary (though not sole) purpose of the Old Covenant Scriptures. The Scriptures were given in order to identify who this deliverer … this Messiah would be.

In the past two weeks, we have looked at those Scriptures and have sought to set forth a narrative that describes the one they were expecting. Thus far as through the Davidic Kingdom, we have seen that the coming deliverer would be a man of violence inasmuch as he is to be the serpent head-crusher. We have traced that theme through Moses over the serpentine Pharaoh, through the Hebrews treading the serpentine land of Canaan as they conquered, through David conquering the serpent armored Goliath. We could have seen this theme in Jael pegging Sisera and in the unnamed woman dropping a stone on the head of Israel’s persecutor “Abimelech.”

We have noted that this man of violence will come from a royal line from the tribe of Judah considering passages like Gen. 49:10 and Number 24:16-19, and then as even more narrowed down as from David’s Kingly line as we considered in II Samuel 7:8-17. Of course, this means the deliverer that was expected by our Fathers would be a King.

We have also learned along the way that this coming expected deliverer was to be a blessing to all the Nations. We noted that the Deliverer was not merely a Hebrew Deliverer but that He would be a champion for all the nations. We noted this theme not only from Genesis 12 but also from Psalm 2 and Psalm 110. We spoke here that this aspect points in the direction of an optimistic eschatology wherein the Nations to submit to the Deliverer.

We have also learned that the one they were expecting would be a Priest in the line of Melchizedek as we considered Genesis 14:20, and Psalm 110:4. We also noted the OT Sacrificial System in the Pentateuch that would serve as an anti-type of the kind of Priestly work the fulfillment deliverer would accomplish. The coming deliverer would speak to God for the people, which is the role of a Priest.

We also said they expected a Prophet. As a prophet, we noted that the coming deliverer would speak to the people for God, which is the role of the prophet. We considered passages like Deuteronomy 18:15-19 where Moses promised that a greater Prophet than He would come.

Combining these last three we emphasized that in looking for the Deliverer they would find someone who would combine the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King in one person. This was unheard of and not allowed in the Old Covenant and so this coming Deliverer would be sui generis.

We also noted that He would esteem God’s Law. We drew that aspect of the expected deliverer from the reality that each new King seated was responsible to write out God’s Law en toto in order that He would know God’s Law and esteem God’s Law. The deliverer was a law-keeper and it is not too much to say that they expected a deliverer who as the deliverer would be an embodiment of God’s Law.
He doesn’t bring a new law to replace God’s law but rather sustains God’s law as the Deliverer.

This is where we have arrived at so far when doing a flyby of the Old Covenant Scriptures. This flyby called by its proper name is “Biblical theology.” Using a Biblical theological approach as opposed to a Systematic theological approach we have surveyed the Scriptures. What we have done can’t really be done using a Systematic theological approach.

Briefly, this approach is the difference between understanding someone’s life by looking at it through time-lapse photography that reduces 85 years to 45 minutes vs. understanding someone’s life by having all the facts about their life and them putting those different facts in different piles according to how each fact proved that the person was kind, surly, generous, faithful, and diligent. With time-lapse photography, one can quickly see all the changes and how the beginning and the end are related one to another. You get it condensed all in one flyby. You have the opportunity to see how the whole story fits together from beginning to end. Both methodologies are absolutely necessary in order to understand who our blessed Deliverer and Redeemer is. Both methodologies can be abused and so ruinous. However, both methodologies in the hands of faithful men can be used to set forth the Christ in all His splendor and beauty.

Very well, then what do we say now as we go from the books of History texts that move us from the United Kingdom to the divided Kingdom? Where will we find the Messianic Hope… the hope of the coming deliverer in these books? What did they teach our Fathers about who to expect to come at the 1st advent?

The United Kingdom refers to the life and times of Israel before they became two different Kingdoms – Judah & Israel as a result of King Rehoboam splitting the Kingdom by his tax policy. Prior to that time, the Hebrews had been united under Saul, David, and Solomon. These Kings were riddled with sin, though they remained God’s anointed man. Their sin demonstrated that they were not the ultimate Deliverer promised in Genesis 3 and built on. With the coming of the split between the two Kingdoms, we learn that the Northern Kingdom (Israel) started by Jeroboam by way of idolatry never has a righteous King. The Southern Kingdom (Judah) has a mixed bag of Kings – some who were followed in the way of their Father David and some who were evil (I Kings 12). The Kings in Judah and Israel reveal to us the Deliverer is yet to come. The promise is yet unfulfilled.

When we look at the Prophets of this era we see Elijah, Elisha, and Jonah as prophets to the Northern Kingdom. In these Prophets, we learn that the coming Prophet will be fierce, faithful, and unrelenting in his role Prophet. We learn particularly from Elijah that the coming deliverer will have a forerunner to prepare the way of the Lord. So, the Deliverer will not arrive w/o an Elijah like personage serving as herald to his coming. We learn this directly from a later Prophet to the Southern Kingdom,

Malachi 4

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet
Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
6 And he will turn
The hearts of the fathers to the children,
And the hearts of the children to their fathers,
Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.”

At this point, we are getting more and more specific details. We know that John The Baptist was this coming Elijah prophesied by later textual hints;

Now John wore a garment of camel’s hair, and a leather girdle around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. (Matthew 3:4)

Matthew does not record this by way of accident. This description ties John the Baptist as the Forerunner Elijah prophesied because you see the prophet Elijah wore similar clothing that set him apart from everyone else. In 2 Kings 1:8 Elijah is described the same way,

They answered him, “He wore a garment of haircloth, with a girdle of leather about his loins.” And he said, “It is Elijah the Tishbite.”

And our Lord says it explicitly in Matthew 11.

 14 And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come.
If Elijah pictures the forerunner John the Baptist then it is natural to understand that Elishah, who came after Elijah gives us insight into the Deliverer because as Elisha manifested even greater power in the Spirit than his predecessor so the coming Deliverer will manifest greater power in the Spirit than John the Baptist. I believe this points to the reality of the miracles that the Messiah would make known. The Deliverer once He arrives reaches for the prophet Jonah as promissory in his ministry of the coming Messiah. Jonah in that Whale’s belly spoke of the fact that the coming Deliverer would be three days dead and buried only to see the resurrection.

Matthew 12:38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.”39 But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Here now there is this almost contradiction that we spoke of last week. This coming Deliverer, who is to be a man of violence, who is a King triumphing over His enemies while delivering His people is also to know humiliation. Death, burial, and resurrection is combined with Triumph, exaltation and victory.

The coming Deliverer is a seeming contradiction. How can he be both at the same time? Well, in the life of the Deliverer we learn that indeed both are true. He comes as the seed of King David – Himself a King – and worshiped by Kings and yet even in His lowly and mean birth we see anticipated the coming humiliation.

As we turn to the prophets of the Southern Kingdom – Judah – we find brought out the ministry of the Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Micah who each have something to add to the description of the expected coming deliverer.

These three have in common the proclamation that Judah would go into Exile becoming captives in Babylon. (Jer. 25:8-11; Micah 3:12, Is. 3:1-26, 5:13-17).

Jeremiah turns to the Kingly theme again speaking of the coming Deliverer who would be the seed of David who would reign as the “righteous Branch.” Jeremiah also tells us that this expected Deliverer will gather the scattered flock of Israel and restore righteousness and justice in the land.

“Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord,
“That I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness;
A King shall reign and prosper,
And execute judgment and righteousness in the earth.

The idea of a “branch of righteousness,” in the context of Jeremiah’s prophecy teaches that the expected Deliverer will come at a time when Israel’s fortunes are at low ebb. The stump is dead but a Branch of righteousness springs forth bringing forth a Son of David when it seemed unlikely. This informed those with ears to hear that the Deliverer would come when least expected. And that is exactly what comes to pass.

Micah likewise speaks of Israel’s restoration, and the coming righteous rule of the Messiah (Micah 4). However, Micah gets really specific tell us that the Deliverer who will be the bread come down from Heaven will be born in the House of Bread – Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel,
Whose goings forth are from of old,
From [a]everlasting.”

But notice another door that is opened here concerning the coming Deliverer. Micah tells us of the coming Deliverer that Israel awaits that there is something more here than a mere man. His goings forth are from of old… indeed from everlasting. Here we have hinted that the coming Deliverer will not only be very man of man but also something more… something that must include an ancient standing. Divinity is hinted at. It will be hinted at again before we get out of the Prophets.



Whoever this Deliverer is going to be he is going to be an extraordinary individual.

We turn to Isaiah now and in Isaiah, we get an information overload as to who this Deliverer is going to be.

Isaiah in chapters 1-5 opens with God’s promised Judgment on Israel for its wickedness. Ch. 8:1-8; 10:5; 13:1-22 finds God promising to use the nations as His instruments of justice but a Messiah is promised who will deliver them. As such Isaiah is chock full of information on the promised Deliverer.

In Is. 7 King Ahaz of Judah is told by God to ask for a sign that Ahaz’s enemies will not yet prevail against him. Ahaz refuses to ask so God gives Ahaz a sign anyway. The prediction given was not just to Ahaz, but to the house of David (Isa. 7:2, 13). The threat in Isaiah 7 was not only to Ahaz. The house of David had been unfaithful to the Lord and it is to them that this prophetic promise of a sign is given.

“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken” (Isaiah 7:14-16).

This prophecy gets very specific about the expected coming deliverer. This passage is hotly disputed between Biblical Christians and Liberals. Liberals will insist that the word “Virgin” here should be translated “maiden,” while Biblical Christian hold for the word “virgin.” We will argue in just a bit that the word is elastic enough to have both meanings.

We learn here that the realized fulfillment of this prophecy tells us that the Deliverer will be born of a virgin and He shall call His name Emmanuel. Emmanuel literally means “God with us.”

Now the prophecy of Micah gets colored in and we see here that the one Micah spoke of as His going forth are from old … from everlasting is God Himself. Connecting these ideas we can say here that the Saints should have been expecting on that first Advent one who was born of a virgin who was both very man of very man and very God of very God.

Calvin chimes in here maintaining that the Issainic name “Emmanuel” cannot be applied to anyone who is not God. No one else in the Old Testament bears this name. For these reasons, the prophecy must be interpreted only of that One to whom these conditions apply, namely, Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Virgin, and the Mighty God.

And so Matthew quotes

23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

This is not to say that the prophecy doesn’t have a short term fulfillment. Doubtless, it was one of those prophecies that has both a short term and a long term fulfillment. The sign has a double intent. The first was to King Ahaz to inform him that his two enemy kings who were warring against him would be overcome before the child would cease being a child. When we look at vs. 22 we learn that ‘curds and honey,’ are the food of prosperity. This hints that Ahaz’s enemies will not put the city into starvation mode. In the short term fulfillment the child’s birth need not have been supernatural since the word translated as virgin can also mean “maiden.” So, the near fulfillment emphasizes that a maiden will conceive but the emphasis is on the fact that the child will eat the food of prosperity meaning that the siege would not be successful. However, the far-away fulfillment emphasizes the virginity preceding the birth as emphasized in Matthew’s usage of the text.

Allow me to interject here that this virginity of Mary is a hill to die on. Years ago, when arriving I had someone assigned to me to be a mentor whose role was to grease the rails so that I could be admitted to the good ole boy ministers clubhouse. It wasn’t long before that relationship broke down on this very issue. This chap wanted to insist that the virginity of Mary was a myth. I was having none of it. The virginity of Mary is there to demonstrate that the pregnancy of Mary was God’s supernatural work giving her a son who was very God of very God. If Mary was pregnant of Joseph or any other mortal man that would be the end of Jesus Divinity and it being the end of Jesus divinity it would be the end of Jesus the Deliverer being able to die for the sins of His people since He would have had to die for His own sin nature. The Gospel of Jesus Christ does not hang solely on the virginity of Mary but without the virginity of Mary, there is no Gospel. No salvation. No hope.

We will pick up here in Isaiah @ the Christmas Eve service. Notice that as the progress of Redemption unfolds we get more and more information about who this Messiah will be. We have added this week a great deal of information and all that information from the old covenant Scriptures point us to Jesus as the promised Deliverer. Jesus is our Deliverer to be the one who reverses the consequences of the fall … who is our Prophet, Priest, and King… who is very man of very man and very God of very God.

Jesus is why Christmas can be Merry.

Every Citizen in Michigan liked Christmas a lot
But the Gretchen who lived there in Lansing did not!

The Gretchen hated Christmas! The whole Christmas season!
Now, please don’t ask why. The insane have no reason.

It could be, perhaps, that her shoes were too tight.
It could be that Nessal wasn’t friendly at night.

But I think the most likely reason of all
Is that Soros told the Gretch to make Michigan fall

But whatever the reason for her Christmas hate
She stood there resolved to erase Christmas’ date

Staring down from Lansing with a sour, Gretchy frown
She was determined she was going to take Christmas down

For she knew every resident in Michigan cities
Were busy ignoring her silly mandate ditties

She fumed that they were gathering in homes far and near
Despising her orders that all should have fear

Then she snarled, with her Gretchen fingers nervously strumming
“I must find a way to stop all these Christmas homecomings”

She knew that Christmas would mean plenty of banter
In Michigan homes on the best way to supplant her

And then! Oh, the blogs!, Oh, the blogs! Blogs! Blogs! Blogs!
There’s one thing I hate! Michigan Blogs! Blogs! Blogs! Blogs!

They’ll go on the net together, with Christmas delight
Writing one and all about the Wretched Gretchy fight

Dear Pastor;

Why do people look for political solutions to moral problems?

Martin
Chalcedon

Dear Martin,

Thanks for your question. It is a legitimate question.

The reason that political solutions are sought out for moral problems is that when God is thrown out of the equation then the only thing left to provide a solution to moral problems is politics.

Moral problems can only be solved by right thinking about God. If modern man won’t have God then he has to look someplace else to fill the God-void in order to arrive at solutions for the moral problems that occur from not bowing the knee to God’s authority. When a theological void is created the only way moral problems can be correctly answered is by politics.

Politics thus takes the place of theology for fallen man. Since fallen man has no sovereign God to turn to for answers to moral problems the only place left to look is to the sovereign state for answers to moral problems.

By the way, Martin, this is why politics has become a blood sport. If it is the case that the state, via political solutions, is going to become the moral arbiter of right and wrong then it is understandable why people go ape concerning politics since politics is going to determine who the God is who is going to solve moral problems. People, on some level, understand that they are voting for God when they vote for President and other lesser leaders. As such, many people, understanding what is at stake, will go as far as using crooked voting machines, enroll dead people voting, and use other nefarious means to get their god elected. For fallen man, politics has taken the place of theology and indeed has become theology.

Fallen man understands that via politics he can use the state as a hammer to social engineer all moral problems in the direction he desires. So, people look to political solutions to moral problems because without the God of the Bible that is one of the places one can find the raw power to set one’s moral agenda in the direction one desires.

Of course, Martin, we have to realize that when politics, absent being informed by Biblical theology and the God of the Bible, the consequence will be the creation of dystopia via social engineering all in the name of creating Utopia. Godless political man can never provide lasting and sufficient answers to fallen man’s moral problems.

However, political solutions do have a place to solve moral problems Martin but only if those political solutions are downstream of God’s revealed Word. Politics, we need to understand, is not in and of itself evil. Politics is only evil in trying to provide solutions to moral problems when the politics in question are taking for their authority some other authority besides the God of the Bible and His Law-Word.

So, in summary, fallen people look to fallen political solutions as answers to moral problems because politics and the solutions it provides have, in lieu of the God of the Bible, become their source of authority.

“It was January 49 BC, Caesar was staying in the northern Italian city of Ravenna and he had a decision to make. Either he acquiesced to the Senate’s command upon him to resign his command and disband his army or risk being declared an “Enemy of the State,” if he decided to disobey the Senate’s command. If Caesar decided to disobey the Senate then his option was to move southward to confront Pompey and plunge the Roman Republic into a bloody civil war. An ancient Roman law forbade any general from crossing the Rubicon River and entering Italy proper with a standing army. To do so was treason. This tiny stream would reveal Caesar’s intentions and mark the point of no return.”

Suetonius
“Life of Julius Caesar” — Paraphrase

People have asked what I think will happen on 20 January 2021. They want to know if I think that Trump will cross his own version of the Rubicon. They want to know who I think will take the oath of office for the Presidency of these united States. The answer to this is dependent upon who one thinks Trump is. Is Trump really a MAGA civic nationalist who is opposed to the globalist deep state or is Trump a Judas-goat agent of the deep state in order to bring America down so that the New World Order can cripple America by civil conflict so that the NWO can pursue its egalitarian “Build back better” agenda?

If the NWO and their Bankster agents are pulling the strings the question reduces to, “Could the NWO better pursue their agenda via the conflict that would rage in these Us with a Trump presidency, or would a Biden presidency more easily result in the securing of the Globalist dream? You see, one does not need to believe that Trump is what he says he is in order to believe that Trump still might become President in January.

Trump, who has railed against the idea of Socialists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Occasional Cortex and yet has pursued a fiscal policy that would make a drunken sailor proud. Trump was the one who first locked down the country under the pretext that “social distancing would flatten the curve” — a decision that has gone a long way towards bankrupting small businesses thus paving the way to Corporate socialism. These policies could hardly be described as America First or as a model of civic nationalism.

Of course, by all surface appearances a President Biden, as combined with a Democratic Senate and House would be far more disastrous in terms of a lurch towards open minority and sexual pervert Marxism. As such, anybody who wants the coming socialism to be of the more diluted variety will desire Trump to take office in January.

It is my conviction that Trump will remain President. Many people will insist that such a conviction is, unlike the electoral votes from several states, certifiable. They insist that there is nothing that is being reported that points to that conclusion. However, people need to keep in mind that these kinds of things that I’m seeing are not typically those types of things that receive a lot of press. For example, In the run-up to WW II there was all kinds of intense skullduggery that was going on beneath the surface but not seen by the public, or if seen by the public it was explained away as other than it really was. Wm. Stephenson and Roald Dahl were two Brits who were tasked with skullduggery in order to drag the US into the war. Roald Dahl was originally tasked with planting pro-British and anti-Nazi stories in the American press in the hopes of rallying a reluctant United States to join World War II, the spy network worked after the bombing of Pearl Harbor to counter the significant isolationist sentiment that still remained in the country and ensure the United States remained in the fight. Dahl’s assignment included blackening the names of those championing the America 1st movement. All this to say that we must not assess what is happening now surrounding election 2020 by what we see on the surface or by what is explained by the press. There is, I believe, a great deal of WW 2 type prelude skullduggery going on below the surface.

Such as,

1.) Trump is not giving any indications that he is going to concede. We are now just a few days short of a month before Trump is scheduled to leave and yet all we get from the Don is more tweets about how Election 2020 was a cheat.

2.) There are rumors swirling that even SCOTUS justices are yelling at each other behind closed doors about Election 2020 and their role in resolving it. Of course, Snopes says this story is false but nobody has proven for me yet that Snopes is worthy of my time listening.

3.) There is the sudden articulation for how the line of succession is to work for the Secretary of Defense should he be incapacitated. Why now? Does this portend anticipated conflict?

4.) Defense Secretary Miller has denied to the Biden transition team any cooperation from the Pentagon on transition issues.

5.) If one reads Trump’s Executive Order from 2018

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-imposing-certain-sanctions-event-foreign-interference-united-states-election/?fbclid=IwAR0ZEUHzLr9Oj_B9f758XZJWnzxdO5U-1VdHDrRgWDT1vxL4AHKiK8RympA

It looks like it was written especially for the current situation in which we find ourselves.

6.) Then there is the reality of the Insurrection Act which can legitimately be invoked.

A further probing might ask a few more questions…

7.) Why did Bill Barr quit now? Is he playing some kind of possum or is he really some kind of Judas to Trump?

8.) Is Durham with his report playing the same kind of possum game? Or will we yet see the Durham report in some other capacity as damning evidence against members of the deep state?

9.) John Ratcliff as DNI has reported that there was foreign skullduggery involvement in election 2020. This report is per the requirements of Trump’s 2018 Executive Order that allows Trump to cross the Rubicon. Ratcliff’s report has said to be delayed for a few days which will chronicle China Iran and Russia’s injurious involvement.

10.) Then there remains the high octane tweets and communique of powerhouse attorneys L. Lin Wood and Sydney Powell. Are we really to believe that these two people are willing to ruin their careers in order to screech like banshees on amphetamine highs in order to say false things about election 2020 and the various participants therein?

In the context of all this, we must keep in mind the players and their connections. Senate Majority leader, Mitch McConnel for example, is married to Elaine Chao — Secretary of Transportation. Recall that Chao has deep connections to China and the Chinese Communist party through her family. It is not a surprise therefore that “The Turtle” McConnell would support Biden as President-elect. Now combine this with the recent Congressman Eric Swalwell Chinese circus as well as the Sen. Diane Feinstein Chinese spy chauffeur and gofer for the past twenty years. Add one more layer of Chinese spying during the Clinton administration and one begins to see that Communist China has been the #1 global threat to American interest for 30 years now. China’s money is everywhere from Hollywood to the NBA, to Washington DC. It is not an accident that Trump went after China once he became President.

So, these are some reasons that I think that Trump will cross his version of the Rubicon in January. The person who reads the above closely will easily see that I myself remain conflicted as to who Trump really is. Is Trump really MAGA man — a civic Nationalist fighting the New World Order — or is Trump controlled opposition being used by the NWO to advance a preset agenda? I’ve been looking at him now for four years and it is hard to say who this lifelong Democrat (until 2016) is.

If you search engine “The Gospel Coalition Cult Christian Trumpism,” you will find what I am responding to here. This is part II which examines Michael’s reasons for his assessment on the rise of Christian Trumpism. I’m not linking TGC to my site because I don’t want to increase their traffic. The points below speak to the article in question starting with Michael’s reasons and follow the flow of the article from that point forward — generally speaking.

Michael’s three points for the rise of Christian Trumpism are;

1.) Christian Americanism
2.) End-Times Conspiracy
3.) Prosperity Gospel

Michael writes on #1

Christian Americanism is the narrative that God specially called the United States into being as an extraordinary—verging on miraculous—providence. Passages from the election of Israel in the old covenant are lifted out of context and applied to America.

BLM responds,

First, I should offer that I do not buy into the whole notion of American exceptionalism or the American Manifest Destiny. When I read US History I find chapters and chapters that are necessary to weep over. However, the chapters I weep over are the chapters that the Left tends to exult over (The War Between The States, entry into WW I, WW II, Yalta, The Civil Rights Movement, etc.), and the chapters I exult over the Left gnashes their teeth over (The Southern Confederacy, The 1924 Immigration Act, Freedom of Association, Sen. Joseph McCarthy, etc.). Because, as a Christian, I read history different than those of the “Christian Americanism” stripe there is a sense that I will agree with Michael here. However, as a Christian, I also read American history differently than Michael and his happy band of R2K Pilgrims read history and so there is also a sense in which I will vociferously disagree with the man.

However, having said that I still believe that God specially called these united States into being by an extraordinary providence — yes, even verging on a “remarkable providence” footing. (The Puritans preferred “remarkable providence” over “miraculous” since they believe that miraculous was a word saved for what happened in the Scripture.) Any dedicated reading to the founding of America forward demonstrates repeated remarkable providences in the formation of this country.

Now as to Michael’s disagreement with the idea of passages from the OT taken out of context and applied to America by our forefathers we must have a few words. First, let’s just admit that this is a hermeneutical disagreement and that Michael does not have the high ground here. Plenty of European Christians handled the idea of covenant in relation to their nation the same way America’s founders handled the idea of covenant. We could start with those who created and signed the Solemn League and Covenant. We could mention the Boers as they settled what we now know as South Africa. We could mention Oliver Cromwell and his Roundheads. Actually, Michael refusing to see an application of the Covenant to a Nation is a feature in Michael’s R2K “theology,” and so the sine of this move is hardly as obvious as Michael wants to suggest it is.

Second, we need to keep before us that Michael’s “theology” does not allow him to even consider the possibility of any nation being a Christian Nation. Michael’s R2K “theology” rules that category out of bounds as a beginning presupposition. So, given that fact, it’s not surprising that Michael whines about applying Scriptural covenantal categories to any nation. Because of this reality, we are not surprised by Michael’s hand-wringing over this.

2.) Michael then tells us that he believes that the better lights of the founding Fathers were the reputed non-Sectarians. Michael will surely allow me to see Patrick Henry as preferable to his James Madison. We have noted numerous times on this blog that non-sectarianism is a myth and so I won’t take the time to refute that silly notion once again.

3.) As noted earlier Michael’s R2K does not allow him to speak of a ‘holy nation.’ We must understand that is completely sui generis to R2K, and their fellow travelers the Anabaptists, Lutherans, and Libertarians like Roger Williams. It is not a historically Reformed position and frankly, I resent Horton and the R2K Pilgrims constantly insisting that this idiotic position is the Reformed de ri​gueur position. Clearly, it is possible for nations to be covenanted and so be set apart as uniquely belonging to God. Indeed, as God is sovereign over all and has entrusted Kingship to His Lord Christ it is the case that all nations as being owned by Christ must take plights of allegiance to the Lord Christ lest He be angry and those nations perish in the way.

4.) Nothing that is said in #3 contradicts the reality and the role of the Church that Michael sets forth in his article as untrue. I would only insist that God’s Kingdom consists of those individuals gathered in their nations around “the lamb who was slain,” and that God has “ransomed peoples for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” in their tribes, languages, peoples, and nations to be a kingdom and priests to our God.

5.) Michael next, once again, reduces Christianity to his narrow definition of the Gospel. I have no problem saluting his narrow definition of the Gospel. However, it is definitely the case that Michael has a problem with a definition of Christianity that is totalistic in scope. Christianity certainly offers the good news not only of Justification as found in the Lord Jesus Christ freely given to the elect but Christianity also confers, by the working of the Holy Spirit in redeemed men, an ever-increasing becoming of what they have been freely declared to be in Christ. This means that men, by God’s grace alone, increasingly conform to the image of God’s dear Son. This sanctification means man goes from Christlikeness to Christlikeness and this Christlikeness is measured by walking in terms of God’s authoritative Law Word (see Heidelberg Catechism Q. 91). This means that there is good news in the reality that Christianity, like salt and light, preserves and improves man and all the Institutions, Disciplines, and reality that redeemed man touches. Holy men, in sufficient numbers, will create holy families, holy education, holy law, and yes, even holy nations.

6.) Michael then offers,

Yet in scrambling for political privilege, the church loses confidence in the Spirit’s power working through this gospel and communicates to the world that it requires worldly supports for its success.

I’ll let Calvin’s sermon from I Samuel 8 repudiate Michael here,

“The Lord does not give Kings the right to use their power to subject the people to tyranny. Indeed when Liberty to resist tyranny seems to be taken away by princes who have taken over, one can justly ask this question; since kings and princes are bound by covenant to the people, to administer law in truest equality, sincerity and integrity; if they break faith and usurp tyrannical power by which they allow themselves everything they want: is it not possible for the people to consider together taking measures in order to remedy the evil?”

Was Calvin communicating to the world that he was looking to the world for worldly success in his admonishment for people to consider taking measures in order to remedy magistrate evil, the result of which would certainly mean political privilege for Calvinists?

Clearly, Michael Horton’s “theology” that protests Christian Americanism must be rejected just as much as the idea of American Exceptionalism or Manifest Destiny must be rejected.

7.) Next, Michael tees up his objections to End Times Conspiracy. I don’t have much disagreement here though I do discover a rich vein of irony when Michael complains about how End Times Conspiracists had a “biblical prophecy (that) was a Manichean dualism between “the planet Earth” and “Heaven.” The irony is found in a dualist complaining about other people’s dualism. Horton and his merry Pilgrim R2K acolytes have a “theology” that is besotted with dualisms. Indeed, one of their prophets even calls the R2K life the “hyphenated life.” It is true that Michael doesn’t draw a dualism between heaven and earth the way the Dispies he complains of do, but it is also true that Michael has a dualism between what he calls “the Common Kingdom,” and “the Grace Kingdom.” These dualisms of R2K are most grossly expressed in R2K dualisms of Natural law vs. God’s Law and Common Realm vs. Grace Realm.

8.) Oh, and Michael… I far more prefer the John Birch society than to your Democratic party.

9.) I completely agree with Horton on the Prosperity Gospel issue, though I must note that Michael’s R2K uber-pessimistic amillennialism is bound to itch more over the Gospel having success than what you’ll find in Biblical Christians who own a biblical eschatology. I also will add here that nobody (not even Michael) rolls his eyes more over the like of Eric Metaxes, Hal Lindsey, Jim & Tammy Baker, the Crouch’s, etc. One doesn’t have to be an R2K nutcase to find these other nutcases to be disturbing.

10.) Michael ends by writing;

“Blend these three ingredients––with a generous dose of hucksterism, self-promotion, and personality cult—and it’s not surprising that we have the cult of Christian Trumpism. Though it has nothing to do with serious politics or serious Christianity, it’s the culmination of many decades of exploiting both. And the end result is a dangerous enthusiasm that opposes both.“

Much the same could be written of R2k “theology.” There is plenty of hucksterism, self-promotion and personality cult in R2k. Doubt me? Just try disagreeing with R. Scott Clark. Doubt me? Just attend a PCRT conference. Doubt me? Just attend an R2K church for a month and see all the self-promotion of R2K.

As far as I’m concerned R2K and Christian Trumpism deserve one another. One can only hope that God will clear them both from our sight.