The doctrine of interposition is normally applied to lesser magistrates intervening against the wickedness of greater magistrates and so overturning their rule.

Three things here

1.) In these united States it is ipso facto an error to think of the FEDS as the greater Magistrates. The FEDS are not automatically the greater magistrates. As such if and when a state magistrate had to step in to contravene a decision from the Federal magistrate this would not be an example of interposition since often the state magistrate is the greater magistrate vis-a-vis the Federal magistrate.
2.) When it is the case that there are no lesser magistrates in the civil social realm to practice the doctrine of interposition that does not mean that there are no longer options. When there are no lesser magistrates to embrace and practice interposition then interposition would seem to require a magistrate from a different jurisdiction finally stepping up to adhere and practice this doctrine. This means if there are no lesser magistrates in the civil-social realm to stop the evil of wicked magistrates — perhaps because of fear or timidity — then interposition can still take place as magistrates from other jurisdictions are now responsible to place themselves as God’s spokesman between the wicked magistrates and the people.
These other magistrates from other jurisdictional realms that must step forward to practice interposition where there are no lesser magistrates to practice interposition in the civil social realm are the Clergy and Elders if any exist. If no lesser magistrate from the civil-social realm will interposit themselves between the people and the greater magistrates then the Clergy and Elders must practice the doctrine of interposition as magistrates coming from a different jurisdictional realm to straighten out a jurisdictional realm that had gone completely rebellious against God and His law-order. Clergy and Elders must rebel against the rule of the greater and lesser magistrates in order to be faithful to God and His law-word.
I believe that this is the point we are coming to and there may be little hope even in this because so few clergy members are willing to step up and resist wickedness from wicked magistrates.
We see this kind of action in the OT with Elijah as a member of the Prophet class practicing interposition against Jezebel and Ahab. As such, there is precedent for what I have laid out above.
3.) Following John Knox, I believe that if neither the lesser magistrates in the civil-social realm will not interposit themselves against greater magistrates for God’s glory and for the protection of the people and if clergy and Elders will not, in turn, interposit themselves against wicked greater and lesser magistrates then the responsibility for interposition falls to the jurisdictional realm of the family and faithful fathers must step up to practice interposition.

DeYoung’s Painful Book Review on Reparations

I’m not a fan of Kevin DeYoung. He loses no sleep over that. In fairness, I’m not a fan of anything that is stamped with “The Gospel Coalition,” and as DeYoung is the board chairman of “TGC” I am hostile to him and it.

Yesterday (22 April 2021) Dr. Rev. DeYoung penned a piece reviewing a book calling for Reparations. You can find the review here; 

In the end, DeYoung comes out largely disagreeing with the book and for that, we can be thankful. However, following DeYoung’s path to that conclusion is painful as one can feel how much it hurts DeYoung to have to disagree with the authors who are two of those who sit at the cool kid’s table.

Below are just two examples that made me grimace in DeYoung’s review.


Dr. Rev. Kevin DeYoung  writes,

“I don’t believe the White church has been especially patient to listen to their African American brothers and sisters, nor particularly open to seeing sins in our national or ecclesiastical histories.”

Bret responds

Jeepers… imagine me not being particularly open to listening to a bunch of crypto-Marxists who are too stupid to know that they are channeling Karl Marx & Herbert Marcuse and calling it Christian theology. It might be worse though. It might be that they know they are channelling Trotsky and Gramsci while calling it Christian theology and they just don’t care.

Imagine me not listening to the intellectual descendants of James Cone even though it is even money they have never heard of James Cone. Why would I listen to Kwon and Thompson spouting black liberation theology?

People who believe the tripe that Kwon and Thompson believe are not my Christian brothers or sisters and I am under no obligation to listen to them — patiently or otherwise. These people are not writing within the context of a Christian weltanschauung unless we define “Christian” consistent with the writings of St. Horkheimer, St. Ordono, or St. Bell.

DeYoung tries to lay a guilt trip on the “White Church” by saying stupid things like the paragraph above. I am under no compulsion to listen to these people any longer than it takes to realize that they are of their father the Devil.

And as I am so busy seeing my own sin Kevin DeYoung will excuse me if I don’t focus on the sins of my Fathers. And if DeYoung wants me to see national and ecclesiastical sins how about we start with the sins of people like DeYoung who think it is virtuous to call our Fathers sinners and who doesn’t realize that Critical Race Theory even in diluted amounts, is sin?

DeYoung writes again,

“I want to listen. I don’t believe 350 years of injustice are erased in 50 years of improvement. “
Bret responds,

350 years of injustice? You mean the injustice found in not leaving the black man in Africa so he could be some cannibal’s next dinner? Hey Kev, do you mean the injustice found in Southerners buying slaves who if not bought found their next stop being sold into the cane fields of Cuba and Brazil where their life expectancy was 9 months? Do you mean the injustice of being made part of the Southern household?  Hey, Kev are you talking about the injustice of being evangelized and taught the Christian religion by the Southerners who owned their labor? Kev, are we talking about the injustice that found the black man reproducing and flourishing here in the South so that his numbers grew? Is that the kind of injustice you’re talking about Dr. DeYoung?

Were there injustices? Who could ever doubt it? Were there injustices done to all the white slaves taken over the centuries and enslaved in Arab and Muslim lands? Pretty certain there was. Were there injustices done to black men in Africa enslaved by other black Africans? Were there injustices done to black men in America enslaved by other black slave owners?

So much of what DeYoung writes is premised on the false narrative of slavery in the US.

And improvement? I guarantee you if an inner-city child in Chicago could choose to go back to the antebellum South slave plantation where he could get three hots and a cot or stay in the rat-infested gang banger hoodlum Chicago he would choose 1851 Charleston overnight.

DeYoung needs to quit reading Uncle Tom’s Cabin as if it is a history book and pick up a real history book. I can give him some recommendations if he likes.

Anyway, there is a good deal more like this that makes one cringe. However, as I said, DeYoung finally comes out on the side of the angels but the path he takes getting there makes me wish he’d just suit up for the other team.

WW II … A Revisionist Reading List

I try to read a great deal. One area among several I have concentrated on is WW II. Being familiar with the background of WW II is absolutely necessary to understand the 20th century as the 20th century has accelerated the Marxist Revolutionary push first started with the French Revolution. Most of what is available on WW II from the court historians reinforces the narrative of the Revolutionary history. The books below begin to puncture that narrative and offer the opportunity to reconstruct what I find to be a much more plausible narrative that instructs us that there were no “good guys” and “bad guys” during WW II but just a host of parties wearing different shades of black hats.

In the end, America should have stayed out of that damnable war.

See the following revisionist history books for the truth on WW II

Churchill’s War Vol. 1 & 2 — David Irving
Hitler’s War — David Irving
Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War — Pat Buchanan
Other Losses — James Bacque
The Politician — Robert Welch
America’s Second Crusade — William Henry Chamberlin
Freedom Betrayed — Herbert Hoover
The Great Betrayal — Diane West
M. Stanton Evans — Blacklisted by History
Nicholas Tolstoy — Stalin’s Secret War
John T. Flynn — The Roosevelt Myth
Curtis Dall — My Exploited Father-in-law
John Stinnet — Day of Deceit
Julius Epstein — Operation Keelhaul
George Crocker — The Road to Yalta
Roosevlet & Stalin — Robert Nisbet
The Chief Culprit — Viktor Suvorov
The Naked Capitalist — Cleon Skousen
The Naked Communist — Cleon Skousen
Tragedy and Hope — Carol Quigley
Major Jordan’s Diaries
Desperate Deception — Thomas Mahl
Wall Street and the Rise of Trilogy …. Antony Sutton
Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 — Thomas Goodrich
The Naked Capitalist and The Naked Communist are book-length reviews of Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope.”

If you haven’t read these books or books like them you are clueless about WW II and likely clueless about where we are at this point in history.

A Glimpse at Bolt’s “The Cross From a Distance”

“The Cross of Christ is no minor matter, simply dealing with individual salvation. The salvation of individuals through the Cross of Christ unleashes a revolutionary force that transforms society to its core. The message of the Cross is the only force that can change the world for the better, and the only force that has actually proved that it can do so. It is time for the Cross of Christ to be proclaimed once again, loudly and strongly.

Jesus was not crucified by chance. It was all according to plan. But the divine necessity that took him to the cross was not a blind fate that led to resignation before the pain of human mortality, or to an isolating detachment from human relationships. Jesus went to his death as the climax of the … plans of a loving Creator. Jesus took on human mortality and, by experiencing the full force of the horrors of our mortal flesh, he brought redemption. Personal identity is now found in following the savior to the cross, in the sure hope of the kingdom of God. This journey brings profound freedom: a liberation that comes from having a secure future.”

Dr. Peter G. Bolt 

“The Cross from a Distance; Atonement in Mark’s Gospel” – p. 79

I try to read at least one book on the Cross every year. Yesterday, I finished Peter G. Bolt’s “The Cross from a Distance; Atonement in Mark’s Gospel.” If you want something that is quite readable and serves the purpose of bringing out some rich detail in Mark’s Gospel concerning the Cross this is the book for you. Really, this is just the kind of book that ministers and laymen alike can pick up and profit from.

Bolt spends a good amount of time defending the idea that Christ’s death was vicarious, substitutionary, and penal but he does so drawing those ideas from Mark’s narrative and not by superimposing pre-existing theological categories on the text. Bolt also ties in the Cross with the Kingdom of God motif demonstrating that for Jesus the Cross was a necessary event prior to the Kingdom and that the Cross was the pivotal event to bring in the Kingdom of God. Bolt, in what I found fascinating, demonstrates that Mark’s narrative explicitly teaches that Jesus died under the wrath of God. The way that Bolt brings that out is really spell-binding. This exegesis alone is worth the price of the book. (Liberals hate the idea of God’s Wrath being visited on the Son.) Bolt does some interesting and thoughtful work tying the crucifixion together with Daniel 12. I don’t agree with Bolt completely on this score but it did set me to thinking on several of his points. Bolt also does a great job of showing God’s sovereignty in every detail of the cross. In a section, I wish Bolt had spent more time on he begins to limn out the irony found in the various mockeries of Jesus while on the cross. I was so drawn into that exegesis that I bought another book on Mark’s work on the Cross recommended by Bolt in which Bolt said that a full treatment could be found on the irony in those mockeries. Another strength is Bolt’s Biblical-theological approach to Mark’s text. Bolt did a really fine job of weaving in how the OT texts anticipated all that Mark brings out about the crucifixion. I’ve come to really enjoy the discipline of Biblical theology when it is well done and Bolt did a standup job here. Bolt also spends a good amount of time drawing out the Cross as a theodicy which of course is always helpful.
There were some weaknesses. Bolt insists that the death of Christ gets rid of religion. Now, Bolt is defining religion very narrowly but I’d still rather not use that language since I remain convinced that religion is an inescapable category. Bolt spends a good deal of time dealing with Christ’s cry of dereliction from the Cross (My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me…”) and I’m not satisfied with Bolt’s conclusions here. He dismisses several sets of interpretations as inadequate and ends that section by largely saying that cry is a mystery, going almost Barthian in the end. I do think Calvinists might have better answers on Jesus’ cry of dereliction than Bolt. Another weakness is that Bolt spends way too much time giving us the background of ancient pagan notions of apotheosis in the context of talking about the resurrection. Dealing with weaknesses as a partial Preterist I’m not satisfied in the least with Bolt’s interpretation of “Mark’s Little Apocalypse.” Finally, in terms of weakness, I’m fairly certain that Bolt is not a postmillennialist and that pessimism about future triumph shows.
At just less than 175 pages of text, you can’t go wrong as a layman or minister in picking this volume up and learning from Dr. Bolt.

Who Knew … BLM Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors Confesses To Being A Kinist