The Centrality Of Eschatology

Pertaining to eschatology, another reason eschatology is so important is that one cannot understand the individual pieces of the puzzle unless first has a template by which to read the individual puzzle piece. It is the box that has the whole on it that allows us to understand the many parts in the box we will be putting together.

In the same way we will understand no historical incidents (the individual puzzle pieces) correctly unless we have a proper eschatology that gives us a template by which to read the individual pieces (the box top picture that is needed to know about the puzzle pieces).

People (Christians) who have wildly varying eschatologies are trying to use the pieces from the same puzzle to make wildly varying realities — and all in the name of the same Christ. So, at the end of the day their respective eschatologies are giving them very very different Christianities — indeed one is tempted to say different faiths.

As Christians we can not lean into life at all properly without a right eschatology. “Christians” who have a wrong eschatology are, more often than not, at cross purposes from those with a correct eschatology (post-millennialism) and so are pouring water on each other’s fire. To be perfectly candid I don’t want amillennialism or dispensationalism or premillennialism or full Preterism to succeed or grow because those eschatologies detract from God’s glory and end up creating a finished puzzle that does not correspond to God’s reality. I suspect if those other eschatological schools were honest they would likewise admit that they do not desire my eschatology/theology to succeed for the same reasons.
The thing is that a person runs all their theology through their eschatology so that eschatology is before all considerations and not after. One does not do all their theology and say, “therefore my eschatology.” One does all their eschatology ands says “therefore the rest of my theology.” As such eschatology is both prolegomena and last things at the same time.

Our eschatology tells us how the Bible holds together and the way we understand how the Bible holds together tells how we understand all reality holds together. When you tell me a person’s eschatology, you tell me not only what kind of Christian I can expect to be working with but you also tell me what kind of human being I can expect to be working with.

In the beginning was the eschatology, and the eschatology was with God and the eschatology was God. This is so because God had the end in mind when He began the beginning and so everything He began He put the end of the matter in that beginning so that the end that he planned from the beginning would have a beginning that would end at the end planned from the beginning.

Eschatology is everything.

Get your eschatology wrong and all else will suffer. Get your eschatology right and all else will fall into place.

The Noble Savage & Its Continued Impact

In Rousseau’s worldview the one to be esteemed was the noble savage. The noble savage was the one untouched and untainted by Christianity or civilization. The noble savage hadn’t been polluted with the sin of the social order environment. He was the one in touch with his purified self.

Today the theory of the “Noble Savage” lives on in the Western worldview EXCEPT the noble savage is no longer the indigenous people so much as it is the warped and perverted. However, the virtue of the noble savage myth is still anchored in the one who hasn’t been tainted or polluted by Christianity or civilization just as was true of the indigenous people in the 17th century. As such the Noble Savage is now the sodomite, or the transgender or the pederasts or the feminists. These alone have been untouched by a sinful environment and alone can show the way to enlightenment and understanding.

Because this is so, the modern noble savage is raised up on the totem of social importance. The modern noble savage has more being than anyone else and so is admired and emulated.

Rosseau lives and the West dies.

Nationalism – because the magic dirt theory is just plain stupid.

“The World has never before known a godlessness as organised, miltarised and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, HATRED OF GOD is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly puts them into practice.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

And yet legion is the name of the Christian clergy who are adamantly opposed to Christian Nationalism, opposed to nations being regulated by God’s Law-Word, opposed to Magistrates taking oaths of fealty to the Kingship of Jesus Christ, opposed to the overt presence of the vilest of idols in the public square and opposed to our children being educated in all disciplines in relation to the reality of the God who is and who reigns over all.

Of course all of this is driven by a dualism that separates out the Lordship of Jesus Christ as over the public square. Over one hundred years ago Dutch Reformed Theologian Dr. Herman Bavinck complained of the same;

“Therefore Christ has also a message for home and society, for art and science. Liberalism chose to limit its power and message to the heart and the inner chamber, declaring that its kingdom was not of this world. But if the kingdom is not of, it is certainly in this world, and is intended for it. The word of God, which comes to us in Christ, is a word of liberation and restoration for the whole man, for his understanding of his will, for his body and his soul.

. . . It [the Gospel] does not kill but makes alive. It does not wound but

heals. It is pure grace. And this grace does not cancel nature but establishes and restores it.”

Herman Bavinck
 The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church

Clearly, those members of the clergy who oppose Christian Nationalism do not understand that Christ’s sovereignty is totalistic. Of course, these folks who oppose Christ and Christian nationalism don’t really oppose the general concept of religious nationalism. They merely oppose Christian nationalism. We know this because since there is no such thing as neutrality — I mean it is Jesus the Christ who said; “He does not gather with me, scatters” — there is no such thing as a non-god controlled public square. Even if our clergy lock out Jesus Christ and His Lordship from the public square by opposing Christian Nationalism, they still support the Lordship of some other pissant god. Most generally the pissant god in question is the State God who determines just how far any of the various public square gods can exercise their will in the public square. Sorry folks …. Jesus Christ doesn’t share dominion time with some other pissant god.

Clergy who oppose Christian Nationalism oppose the Jesus Christ of the Bible in favor of a toothless, fangless, tamed Jesus Christ of their own making are to be pitied because on that final day their made up Jesus is going to be meeting the real Jesus. It won’t be pretty.

The Inescapable Nature Of “Racism”

“Antiracism” permits many people to practice racism vicariously by adopting the cause of every race but their own.

Wilmot Robertson
The Dispossessed Majority

Think of those people who are advocating for more immigration or for amnesty or for open borders or for a muscular HB1 visa program. In that advocacy, those people have not avoided being champions for a particular race and they have not avoided being racist as against a particular people. They have not shed themselves of “racism.” Instead, they have taken up the cause for the stranger and the alien as against their own people. They are demonstrating that they desire the stranger and alien to rise higher than the native born. They have determined to render an inheritance to the stranger as opposed to their own children. What they have not done is eliminated their own ethnic bias. They simply now are biased against their people and are biased for those who are displacing their extended family.

“Racism” as it is cast about today had not gone away. They merely have embraced the most fashionable “racism” — “Racism” against their own kin and people. This is an example of self-hatred (oikaphobia) in favor of a muscular xenophilia (love of the stranger and alien). In all this we see that “racism” (stupid Marxist concept that it is) is an inescapable category. No-one ever rids themselves of racism. One merely eschews a non PC racism for a PC racism.

So, if racism is an inescapable category shouldn’t we have a proper order of loves that finds us properly prioritizing our own people, and that without hating those who do not land within the concentric circles of properly ordered love?

The Macro Flow Of Scripture As Reason For Optimistic Eschatology

he (The Lord) says:
“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
    to restore the tribes of Jacob
    and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
    that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

Isaiah 49:6

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 eventually particularized to one people (Israel), though the purpose of that one people is to be a witness to the nations of how great a God they have. 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” (Not all of Israel was ever all of Israel) and then finally God’s salvation design culminates in the election of Jesus Christ to be God’s representative for Redemption of His people.

However, with the resurrection of Christ we find a progressive advance 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 in Redemption is progressively advancing from the one to the many. Consistently traced out this pattern and trajectory requires a belief in postmillennialism.

To argue that the post-resurrection and ascension of Christ means a narrowing of the potency of the soteriological impact of God’s design of salvation is counter-intuitive to the eschatological flow communicated and demonstrated in revelation.

Maybe Warfield’s “Universal Postmillennialism” was correct?