The Eventual Breakup Of These US & Europe

America’s population is northwards of 347 million people now. There are those who contend that approximately 30 million of those are illegal aliens — criminals.

This presents the question of “what unites us together as a cohesive nation?” The premise is that a nation, like a family, must have common ground in order to function coherently. Without common ground a nation, like a family, will disintegrate over time. So, given our ever increasing multicultural status as a nation what are the dynamics that make us, as a many peoples, one people?

It strikes me that there can only be three answers to that question for any nation. Those three options are;

1.) Force / Totalitarianism
2.) Economic Prosperity
3.) Shared Race & Religion

When we consider the force / totalitarian option were are presented with the idea of “Empire.” Empires are kept together by a strong centralized and authoritarian political structure. Here we could remember examples like the former USSR, or the US immediately after the war of Northern Aggression. These Empires (USSR externally among many countries and the USA internally in the one nation) were kept together by the bayonet. Nations which are kept together by Force / Totalitarianism need and have large control mechanisms (Secret police) in order to immediately squash any movement by any subversive groups that might unravel the whole. Again we are reminded of the work of the Cheka/KGB in the former USSR and the Freedman’s Bureau as it existed in the conquered Southern States, post “War Against the Constitution.”

People’s living in and sharing the same “nation” may hate one another but if enough force is applied from a centralized source they can be stitched together for a period of time. Eventually though, Empires cannot sustain the amount of resources they need in order to continue their top down existence and they either implode or explode.

The second source of uniting a nation is Economic prosperity. This falls under the old proverb that all boats rise with a rising tide. When there is abundance among a nation that nation can rise above the inherent disagreements that exist as a result of being so fractured in their population base. I believe this is the explanation for why the US has been able to sustain its multicultural existence for the last few decades now. As racial/ethnic and religious homogeneity has decreased in the last three decades or so it is the fact of comparative economic prosperity that has kept us from disintegrating. This has been combined with ever increasing totalitarianism from Washington DC with its ever burgeoning surveillance society so that currently the reality that is keeping the US from flying apart in secession movements or general various geographic anarchies is comparative economic prosperity combined with the aforementioned totalitarianism.

However, Economic prosperity cannot last forever and eventually totalitarianism fails and at that point unless a nation exists as a nation because of a shared race/ethnicity and a shared religion the nation will not continue to be able to cohere as a nation and political division will result. This is what happened with the fall of the USSR. Economically, the USSR could not continue and as their never was any shared religion/race among the various countries that comprised that Empire the USSR disintegrated. This is what happened when the British lost their Empire under the rule of Churchill. England lost its ability to project power across its previous Empire and in light of its Economic loss in light of its diminishment in WW II its Empire began to melt away. In both cases there was nothing else to hold the people together and now England faces internally what it faced externally at the close of WW II. Because England has allowed itself to be swamped with immigrants from third world origins England is in danger of decided civil unrest. It already is increasing its totalitarian muscle in order to keep its population “united.”

That brings us back to the US. The US in my lifetime was at one point 89% White and Christian. That provided a religious and racial/ethnic base in order to provide a cohesiveness that could rise above national stress and strain. It was this common thread that brought us through two World Wars and a great Depression. It was this common thread that found us continuing during the Draft riots and the Political upheaval of Watergate. Because we were a people with a majority religion and race / ethnicity there were common bonds that could compel us to stay together despite pressures to separate politically.

The fact that shared race / ethnicity alone can’t keep a people together is seen by referencing again our own War Between the States. Despite the fact that we were largely one people racially, the differences at that time in the religion that was animating North (Transcendentalism-Romanticism) and South (Christianity) were so great that the previous common ground could not survive. Shared race alone without a shared religion cannot keep a people together once pressures descend.

The same is true in the other direction. Shared religion alone can’t keep a people together where there isn’t a shared racial/ethnic reality.  One has only to think of the division between blacks and whites in America who both boast of large “Christian” communities within their people groups and yet the divisions between black and white Christians over various issues in the US is well known. The conflict between Christian Serbs and Croats after the fall of Yugoslavia serves as another example of how a shared faith (Christianity) cannot by itself unite a people even when there is strong racial (Slavic) affinities.

All this brings us to the eventual breakup of the US and even of Europe. With the New World Order rearranging of the World via mass immigration the West is no longer the West. Europe and the US had been largely White and Christian until the latter part of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st century. However, both the Christian base (even nominally considered) and the racial/ethnic base has been deteriorated  and the result is that we have nothing intrinsic that can hold us together as nations and this means that once totalitarian efforts are exhausted (and they always exhaust themselves eventually) the eventual course for the US will be the break-up of these once united States. Serious secession movements will arise in the next quarter of a century or so in the US unless something drastically changes in order to restore our religious and racial/ethnic homogeneity.

Before the breakup there may be efforts to pin together the country by force. Total control, with the advent of technology, is getting easier and easier but the centripetal forces are equally strong. Good economic times may also forestall the inevitable but good economic times do not last forever. Eventually, because of how the New World Order has been able to rearrange population centers the US will break apart as a nation.

Potpourri … Random Observations On Random Subjects

“When you come in and say, oh, you know, these (trannie) men are—these are (trannie) men competing against women, you’re assuming that the women are weak and just can’t do anything…”

Whoopi Goldberg
The View

I think we need to agree with Whoopi Goldberg here. That is the assumption behind the outrage of men competing against women. It is true that compared to men in sports, women in sports are weak and just can’t do anything. Whoopi is right here.

Also, though we should note here that there is something implicit in what Whoopi is saying and that implicit something is that gender is a social construct. Because gender is a social construct women can compete against men in women’s sports. So, we have gone from a time where people believed (rightly) that race was biological and so not a social construct to a time where we now are believing that gender, like race, is not biological and is a social construct. I would argue that you can easily connect the dots between “Loving vs. Virginia,” and men competing in women’s sports.

____

“The ‘order of loves’ is not a mere divine command but one that coheres w/ our nature as bounded social beings — the sort of beings that maximize our good among people who share a second nature, that is, particularities.”

Stephen Wolfe
X post

BLMc responds

… MERE divine command?

Wolfe’s Natural Law skubala goes so far as to make God’s command “mere” in comparison with the fact that such and such coheres w/ our nature as if something cohereing w/ our nature is of a higher import than divine command. Divine command, per Wolfe, is mere, while “according to our nature” is pre-eminent.

Am I reading this wrong?

_____

And even now the ax (covenant sanctions) is laid to the root of the trees (Israel). Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Mt. 3:10

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you (Israel) and given to a nation (Gentiles) bearing the fruits of it. Mt. 21:43

Infant Baptism proves that God is done with Israel as a covenant nation. The covenant was taken away from Israel and given to a people formed by peoples who would produce the fruit of it and so the old covenantal rites were dismissed in favor of new covenantal rites and yet those new covenantal rites have continuity with the old rites just as a butterfly has continuity with once being a pupae.

______

Look, I’m against the slaughter of the Alawites in Syria by Muslim nutjobs but to call these Syrian Alawites “Christian” is to do significant damage to the word and meaning of “Christian.” If these people lived here we would only call them “Christian” the way we call Mormon’s “Christian.”

____

“America is a meat-grinder.”

Ron Burns
Cultural Marxist Black Clergy Activist

“Thank God my grand-daddy got on that boat.”

Muhammad Ali

____

I think we have to admit that the Reformed Denominational leadership going after and seeking to destroy the careers of people like Garris and Hunter are operating, whether they intend it or not, from an anti-Christ set of convictions.

____

Ironically enough, the pursuit of diversity in the “Conservative” Reformed Churches today is really nothing but the pursuit of wiping out the distinct ethos, history and culture of Christian White people descended from Europe. Reformed Churches don’t care about diversity. They care about extinguishing White people. Whether they know it or not they are fulfilling their role in our replacement.

_____

I stand w/ Thomas Massie against Trump on the Budget Bill. Being fiscally responsible is always the right thing to do. Go Massie. Demonstrate you’re not a Trump Bot and support Thomas Massie on balancing the budget.

____

Clay Libolt suggests that the Penal Substitutionary Atonement makes God mean. This in spite of the fact that God’s grace, we are told, will reach to a number no man can count. One could only conclude that Penal Substitutionary Atonement makes God “mean” if one begins with the premise that God owes fallen man anything. After all, how can it possibly be considered mean to give to someone what they deserve? 

In Defense of Xenophobia and Racism As American Traits

“I know that it is red meat for his (my opponents) base that are xenophobic and racist to say to them that I am (he is) going to find a way to arrest and deport a member of Congress (Illhan Omar) who he thinks is doing something wrong when I am doing the right thing in trying to make sure everybody that is within my constituency has the resources and the information that they need.”

Illhan Omar
Somali Congress-Critter — Dem. Mn.
CNN Interview

As what is now called a “heritage American” I can not see the problem in being xenophobic or racist, given the fact that Christian Americans were for centuries xenophobic and racist.

Consider the xenophobic and racist nature of our own US Constitution where it was written;

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Keep in mind that both those who offered up this Constitution as well as those who later ratified this Constitution were all, without exception, White Europeans who were shaped by Christian categories. By the standards of Congress-critter Illhan Omar they were each and all xenophobic and racist. That was demonstrated again in 1790 the Naturalization Act which gave the US the first uniform rule for the granting of US citzenship. It read;

 “That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof …”

In addition to the above the US Courts linked whiteness with Christianity thus excluding Muslim immigrants from US citizenship until 1944 with the SCOTUS decision of Ex Parte Mohriez. Given that reality then by the standards of Mooselimb Congress-Critter Illhan Omar all Americans were racist and xenophobic until 1944.

President Calvin Coolidge, by the standards of Illhan Omar was a xenophobe and racist. No big deal.

“There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.”

President Calvin Coolidge

The Great Emancipator himself, Abraham Lincoln, by Illhan Omar’s standard would be a xenophobe and racist;

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln vs. Douglas Debate

Many more quotes from famous Americans could be reproduced with all of them suggesting that there is nothing ignoble about an American being a xenophobe or racist. Indeed, an argument could be made that part of what being a heritage American is, is being xenophobic and racist. Now of course xenophobe is a bit of a misnomer since no heritage American is afraid of the foreigner and the alien. Instead they are merely convinced that just as Japan should be for the Japanese and/or China should be for the Chinese it is the historic position, until the last 60 years or so, that America should be for the White European Christian. This is what our forefathers thought and this is what many contemporary Americans think and the only shame in such a position is the shame that comes from the race Marxists forever bleating that some people might well resist their agenda.

We should also say that, historically thinking, Americans have been broad-minded enough to allow a small percentage of non-Americans to live in our midst. However, at this point in our history, with the clear agenda present to diminish and even replace the white population in America what is required is a return to a 1924 type immigration act in order to keep America American.

 

The Nature of the Atonement … McAtee Contra Libolt (I)

Here I pick up critiquing CRC minister Dr. Clay Libolt’s thoughts on the weakness of the Biblical doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). Clay has appealed to a recent book by Andrew Remington Rillera who was trained at that paragon Institution of Orthodox Christianity — Duke Divinity School. Rillera has produced a book that insists that the atonement was not about the effect of the atonement upon God (objective view) but instead the effect of the atonement was upon the believer (subjective view).  Rillera’s book insists that the sacrificial imagery in the NT is aimed at grounding the exhortation for the audience to be conformed to the cruciform image of Jesus by sharing in his death. The consistent message throughout the entire NT is not that Jesus died instead of us, rather, Jesus dies ahead of us so that we can unite with him and be conformed to the image of his death.

Again, the impact of the cross work of Christ is on man and so the atonement is measured by the effect it has on man. This is in contrast to the teaching of the PSA which does not deny the effect the cross work of Christ has on man, but insist that the subjective impact can only make sense in light of the reconciling impact of the atonement on God toward man. In other words there is a manward impact upon the recipient but that manward impact only makes a difference because God set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. In the atonement God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them.

When we understand that differing theories of the atonement historically have fallen under three overarching categories;

1.) Theories which explain the atonement by the moral influence it has on those who will be recipients (Moral influence theories).

2.) Theories which explain the atonement as God’s eternally assigned means by which He would be reconciled to eternally loved but fallen sinners (Propitiation theories).

3.) Theories which proclaim the atonement as a cosmic victory (Christus Victor theories).

Some prefer a twofold classification of atonement theories, limiting the options to subjective theories as those which emphasize the effect on the believer, in distinction from objective theories which put the stress on what the atonement achieves quite outside the individual. Andrew Remington Rillera has given us a scholarly, erudite, but errant book that opts for option #1 with little to no consideration of the effect of the atonement Godward. This is “Christian” humanism and given Dr. Clay Libolt’s track record through the years of his ministry it is not surprising that Clay would be so enchanted by this volume from the Duke scholar and that despite the fact that such teaching goes against the Three Forms of Unity that Clay has sworn to uphold.

From here I will quote Dr. Libolt’s article that can be found here;

Harsh Justice, Introduction

Clay Libolt writes (Hereafter CL);

This theory of atonement is also “substitutionary.” Because we cannot pay the penalty, God sends God’s own son to pay it for us. Jesus steps in where we cannot. He pays the penalty on the cross.

I note here without developing the thought that this second claim of PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is a bit odd for at least two reasons. One is that the idea that someone can step in for the guilt of someone else seems strange. It’s true that occasionally a person will give up their life for someone else. I think about those who stepped in front of Nazi firing squads, allowing others to escape death. To do so was heroic. But what of the commander of the firing squad? To allow an innocent person to be executed or, rather, to require that someone die in those circumstances is on any account wrong. And in the PSA analogy, we would seem to be putting God in the place of the commander of the firing squad: someone must die; it doesn’t matter whom.

BLMc responds;

1.) I can’t explain why Clay would find this at all odd since Scripture explicitly tells us;

Rmns. 5:7 For one will hardly die for a righteous person; though perhaps for the good person someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

I Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit,

2.) We would note that the Scripture does not teach that the Father “allowed” Jesus Christ to be a propitiatory sacrifice but rather Scripture teaches that God put forth Christ

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. — I John 4:10

3.) Clay writes that such an arrangement as the PSA would be “wrong.” We would ask, “wrong by what standard?” Clearly the death of the just for the unjust is extolled as pre-eminently right by God’s standard.

Him (Jesus Christ), being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:  Acts 2:23

Is Clay saying that God did wrong by sending forth Christ to serve as our substitutionary death.

We begin to see here that Clay is not only disagreeing with the nature of the atonement but we are seeing that Clay has embraced a very different God then the God we find in the Scriptures. This is not just merely a matter of disagreeing about the mechanics of the Cross (as magnificently important as that is). This is about the person, character and attributes of God. In the end this is competition between different understandings of Christianity. Clay wants to start with man. Christians want to start with God.

4.) Note that Clay has God being equal to a Nazi commander executing a poor innocent unjustly. Talk about loading the narrative in your favor. Does Clay really believe that orthodox Protestant Christian theology insists that God doesn’t really care who is the substitute for sinners?

According to the Heidelberg Catechism he swore to uphold the substitute for sinners can’t just any poor schlub;

Question 15: What sort of a mediator and deliverer then must we seek for?

Answer: For one who is very man,7 and perfectly righteous; and yet more powerful than all creatures; that is, one who is also very God.

Secondly on this note, when Clay writes against Penal Substitutionary Atonement he is directly contravening the Heidelberg which explicitly teaches Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

Question 12: Since then, by the righteous judgment of God, we deserve temporal and eternal punishment, is there no way by which we may escape that punishment, and be again received into favor?

Answer: God will have His justice satisfied (Penal), and therefore we must make this full satisfaction, either by ourselves or by another (Substitution).

Also here, Christ was not “some poor victim” of a Nazi Firing Squad Commander (God) who God just randomly chose to be our substitute as Clay would have it;

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but to do the will of Him who sent Me.

Ps. 40 “Here I am, I have come—it is written about me in the scroll: / I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your law is within my heart.” (Cmp. Heb. 10)

Jesus was sent by the Father and eternally willingly embraced what the Father eternally tasked Him with. The Son was not a victim of the Father but the Father and the Son with the Spirit entered from eternity into a covenant whereby God would be glorified in the cosmic impact of the Atonement.

Finally, while Christ was innocent in His person, as our sins were imputed to Him while on the Cross, as a public person He was our sin-bearer.

CL writes,

Second, there is a matter of proportionality. This goes in two directions. First, for God to require eternal punishment for temporal sins seems entirely out of proportion. Is it just for God to require hell for the sins of a child who dies young? Or a person who lives an exemplary life apart from the faith? But it is also out of proportion in the other direction. For the sufferings of Christ, terrible as they were, to balance the suffering of the world seems, well, not entirely adequate. Perhaps this is the reason that Christians seem intent on Good Friday of focusing on how much Jesus suffered.

BLMc responds;

This paragraph leaves me nearly speechless. The fact that a minister believes this and writes this is just astonishing. Understand that Clay is arguing here that God is not just. Clay believes that God is being unfair and overbearing by making the punishment fit the crime. Note, what Clay is doing here is that Clay is summoning God to the dock and serving as the jury Foreman Clay is demanding God give an account of Himself to Clay. It is stunning. Clay, according to Clay’s own standards, has determined that God is disproportional when it comes to punishment for sin.

As to Clay’s question;

1.) Yes, it is just for God to require hell for the sins of a child who dies young. Indeed, what is incredible is that any of us, regardless of our age and comparative innocence should be given grace. Clay is surprised by God’s justice. I am surprised by God’s grace. None of us deserve anything but Hell given both our sin nature and our sinful acts. When it comes to these matters we say along with Father Abraham, “Will not the judge of all the earth do right.” Who is Clay Libolt to call God before the bar of His adjudication?

2.) Yes, it is just of God to cast someone into hell who lived an “exemplary life” without faith. We find ourselves asking first, “exemplary by what standard?” Clay is clearly grading on a curve while God grades on a straight scale. All have sinned and fallen short of what God justly requires (living to and for His glory).  Also consider, is it really possible for anyone, saved or unsaved, to live an “exemplary life” when the standard is God’s perfection? Are we really to believe that a person who has lived their whole lives with themselves as God is a person who has lived an exemplary life? Can a person who has lived all his life for his own glory be said to have lived an exemplary life?

Can you believe a Christian minister is reasoning this way?

3.) But Clay doesn’t stop there. The man actually suggests that the sufferings of Christ on the Cross do not meet and so satisfy the way the world has suffered in/during world history. In other words, for Clay, the world has suffered more than Christ could have ever suffered during His life and on the Cross. Christ’s sufferings were not enough to pay (“not entirely adequate”) for all the suffering that sin has brought in the world. Honestly, even in my most generous moments I can’t see this as anything but blasphemous.

So, for Clay, Penal Substitutionary Atonement can’t be true because Christ didn’t suffer enough in order for it to be true.

We could go on a rag here but suffice it to say that Clay does not appreciate the suffering of the sinless perfect Man and Holy God and the suffering of sinners but clearly at Clay’s age it is unlike any reasoning is going to pull him up short.

Clay is Reformed. Bret is Reformed. Both Clay and Bret served in the same denomination. Clay and Bret can’t both be Christian.

Postmillennialism vis-a-vis Amillennialism … Foundational Differences Teased Out

“It is right for you to realise, and to take as the sum of what we have already stated, and to marvel at exceedingly; namely, that since the Saviour has come among us, idolatry not only has no longer increased, but what there was is diminishing and gradually coming to an end: and not only does the wisdom of the Greeks no longer advance , but what there was is fading away. … And to sum the matter up: behold how the Saviour’s doctrine is everywhere increasing, while all idolatry and everything opposed to the faith of Christ is daily dwindling, and losing power, and falling. … For as, when the sun is come, darkness no longer prevails, but if any be still left anywhere it is driven away; so, now that the divine Appearing of the Word of God is come, the darkness of the idols prevails no more, and all parts of the world in every direction are illumined by His teaching.”

Athanasius, AD 296-372
Incarnation

“…the kingdom of God on earth is not confined to the mere ecclesiastical sphere, but aims at absolute universality, and extends its supreme reign over every department of human life….It follows that it is the duty of every loyal subject to endeavor to bring all human society, social and political, as well as ecclesiastical, into obedience to its law of righteousness.”

A.A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology: Lectures on Doctrine
(Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1890] 1990), 283

“It would be easy to show that at our present rate of progress the kingdoms of this world never could become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ. Indeed, many in the Church are giving up the idea of it except on the occasion of the advent of Christ, which, as it chimes in with our own idleness, is likely to be a popular doctrine. I myself believe that King Jesus will reign, and the idols be utterly abolished; but I expect the same power which turned the world upside down once will still continue to do it. The Holy Ghost would never suffer the imputation to rest upon His holy name that He was not able to convert the world.”

~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon

As Amill eschatology believes that the Kingdom of God is exactly identified with the Church and only with the Church it is inevitable that Amills will diminish the necessity for Christianity to conquer in every area of life outside and beyond the Church. After all, for the Amillennial types, if the Kingdom of God is not inclusive of any area outside the Church and the Kingdom is only synonymous with and for “the Church,” there is no need to conquer those other arenas / areas that for the Amillenialist are “non-Kingdom” arenas.

What I mean is this: As the Amils are always leaning towards identifying the Kingdom of God only with the Church — thus drawing a bright line demarcating between Kingdom/Church activity and non-Kingdom/Church activity — the consequence is that the “consistent with their eschatology” Amils will always chide anybody in the Christian faith who sees the Kingdom as being an arena that is expansive beyond the Church so as in include arenas as education, jurisprudence, just war theory, politics, economics, etc.

Postmils, to the contrary, believing that the Kingdom is not identified as exclusively with the Church and believe thus that the Kingdom of God extends beyond the Church and so will do just the opposite of the Amill and emphasize the necessity that the Church, being the armory of God’s Kingdom, must seek to conquer every arena of human existence. The Postmills believing this then will, unlike their Amill counterparts, address these different various issues from the pulpit. This leaves their Amill counterparts apoplectic.

The fact that this analysis is accurate is seen especially in the writings of David Van Drunen, who I believe has drawn out the most consistently the errant implications of the Amil eschatology. Van Drunen writes in his “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms”;

“God is not redeeming the cultural activities and institutions of this world, but is preserving them through the covenant he made with all living creatures through Noah in Gen. 8:20 – 9:19.”

Van Drunen continues writing;

“God is redeeming a people for himself, by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham and brought to glorious fulfillment in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, who has completed Adam’s original task once and for all” (p. 15). As VanDrunen explains, “redemption is not ‘creation regained’ but ‘re-creation gained’” (p. 26).

When one follows this reasoning closely one realizes that for R2K Amillennialism the intent of Biblical Christianity is to preserve culture so that individuals alone, as extracted from their cultural context, might be redeemed. Individuals are redeemed while their cultural context by definition is unredeemable. If Van Drunen were a linguist he would say that God intends to redeem the text while leaving the context to experience soul sleep. This is consistent Amillennialism and because of this Amillennial “theologians” will go spastic in condemning Postmillennialists for preaching on subject matter that in their Amillennial worldview does not particularize the need for the individual as an individual to be redeemed.

This thus creates a ever growing hostility between consistent Amills and consistent Postmills. In this hostility the Amils will forever be accusing the Postmills of diluting the Christian message since, as the Amills believe, the Postmills major on the minors and the Postmills will forever rightly accuse the Amills of being cowardly pietists who love them some retreat and who are characterized in preaching a Christianity that redeems the text (individual) while leaving the context (culture) unaffected.

This explanation also sheds light on the fact that Amillennialism Christianity and Postmillennialism Christianity create very different types of character and personalities in people. People who are decidedly Postmil are typically going to be type “A” personalities who have a thirst to conquer while people who are decidedly type “B” personalities will be content to be passive and retiring — except when attacking postmillennialists and their eschatology. Amills typically refuse to fight unless it is to fight those (postmills) who never tire of fighting for the honor of Christ.