A Law Quote A Day Keeps The R2Kt Virus Away

“Though we have clear and full scriptures in the New Testament of the abolishing the ceremonial law, yet we no where read in all the New Testament of the abolishing of the judicial law, so far as it did concern the punishing of sins against the moral law, of which heresy and seducing of souls is one, and a great one. Once God did reveal his will for punishing those sins by such and such punishments. He who will hold that the Christian Magistrate is not bound to inflict such punishments for such sins, is bound to prove that those former laws of God are abolished, and show some Scripture for it.”

George Gillespie — Westminster Divine
Wholesome Severity Reconciled With Christian Liberty

Westminster Divine, Gillespie, would never have tolerated a hermeneutic that insists that case law can be expunged from the Christian conscience by chanting “expired.”

Reading Between The Lines Of Obama’s Post Election 2010 Press Conference

Doing a brief analysis of Obama’s post midterm election 2010 press conference it becomes painfully obvious that Obama is doing a couple things. First, in that press conference he sought to put on his “humble face.” However, it is almost impossible for narcissist of the caliber of Obama to be humble. His words belied his mien. Second, people need to realize that as Obama is a Marxist that any concession that is offered or that appears to be offered is a dialectical concession. B. Hussein Obama thinks dialectically. Try to imagine a hammer driving in a nail. When the hammer is lifted from the nail after the first blow the nail might possible think …“Ahh … I see my resistance has discouraged the hammer and so the hammer is retreating.” Of course the hammer’s retreat is a tactical move with the intent of delivering another blow to the nail. Obama’s press conference revealed that Obama is the hammer and the American public is the nail that the Marxist hammer intends to drive into submission. Obama was not retreating in the press conference as a close look at his words reveal. Obama is merely preparing himself for another strike.

The American people have to learn that Marxists do not retreat. Never. They maneuver dialectically … which is to say that any appearance of retreat is only for the purpose of being better able to strike to their advantage in the future.

With that in mind we turn to the B. Hussein Obama press conference.

B. Hussein Obama,

“What yesterday also told us is that no one party will be able to dictate where we go from here, that we must find common ground in order to set — in order to make progress on some uncommonly difficult challenges.”

Obama is being duplicitous here. What election day told us is that the electorate did not desire the Marxist-Democratic party to be the party that arrogantly dictates where the nation goes. It is only on the day after election that we have to live with the fact that no one election can completely turn out the pukes that we want silenced. Because of that reality no one party will be able to dictate where we go from here.

Second, this theme of “finding common ground” is one that Obama kept returning to and banging away at during his press conference. However, this is a lie. The voters yesterday were not saying that they desire common ground to be found. The voters were screaming …

STOP THE MARXIST DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Really, there is very little common ground to be found with these people. For example, even if both parties desire to balance the budge the Marxists want to balance it by tax increases while the Constitutionalists want to balance it by cutting the budget. Each side will be opposed to the other sides idea, and as such there is no place for common ground.

B. Hussein Obama

“And with so much at stake, what the American people don’t want from us, especially here in Washington, is to spend the next two years refighting the political battles of the last two.”

This is clever. Obama cloaks his defiance in a call for unity. By saying that we ought not to re-fight the political battles of the last two years Obama is seeking to undermine the very reason why the voters voted the way they did. As the mid-term election was nationalized over the policy of the Obama administration of the last two years it is clearly the case that what the voters exactly desire is a re-fighting of the political battles of the last two years. This statement is proof that Obama remains defiant and intent on pushing his agenda.

Through the press conference Obama made it clear that health care legislation was not a mistake in policy and that he had no intent to reverse course on his signature legislation.

B. Hussein Obama,

“I think that there are some areas where it’s going to be very difficult for us to agree on, but I think there are going to be a whole bunch of areas where we can agree on. I don’t think there’s anybody in America who thinks that we’ve got an energy policy that works the way it needs to; that thinks that we shouldn’t be working on energy independence. And that gives opportunities for Democrats and Republicans to come together and think about, whether it’s natural gas or energy efficiency or how we can build electric cars in this country, how do we move forward on that agenda.

I think everybody in this country thinks that we’ve got to make sure our kids are equipped in terms of their education, their science background, their math backgrounds, to compete in this new global economy. And that’s going to be an area where I think there’s potential common ground.”

The common ground that Republicans are being called to here is common ground staked out by the Marxists. Both of these (energy and education) are Democratic Trojan horses in order to advance a Marxist control agenda.

B. Hussein Obama,

“I think that over the last two years, we have made a series of very tough decisions, but decisions that were right in terms of moving the country forward in an emergency situation where we had the risk of slipping into a second Great Depression.

But what is absolutely true is that with all that stuff coming at folks fast and furious — a recovery package, what we had to do with respect to the banks, what we had to do with respect to the auto companies — I think people started looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives than they were accustomed to.”

Note, Obama insists that his policy decisions were right. This assertion comes in the face that the voters told him Tuesday that his policy decisions were wrong.

Second, the whole crap about us “falling into a second Great Depression” is merely an assertion. There is no one who knows for a fact that this is true. This is just more hyperbole in order to justify his reckless Marxist policy.

Third, Obama is pinning the problem of the election results on the stupidity of the American people. The government was doing the right thing but the public felt as if government was getting much more intrusive into people’s lives than they were accustomed to.” The implication here is that the government, according to Obama, wasn’t really getting much more intrusive but it merely felt that way to the stupid American public.

“Q Would you still resist the notion that voters rejected the policy choices you made?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Savannah, I think that what I think is absolutely true is voters are not satisfied with the outcomes. If right now we had 5 percent unemployment instead of 9.6 percent unemployment, then people would have more confidence in those policy choices.”

Here Obama suggests that nobody would have objected to his socialist policies if unemployment hadn’t been so high. This bodes for a future Obama who continues to pursue his Marxist policy.

Elsewhere in the press conference what we saw is that Obama won’t move on the principle behind cap and tax (trade), and does not rule out the possibility of implementing cap and tax through the EPA bureaucracy. Further Obama, hasn’t moved on “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Clearly, what we got from this press conference is a belligerent Obama wrapped in a humble facade.

The next two years ought to be interesting.

Election 2010

In undergraduate school I learned that there are three ways of turning out the party in power. Those three ways are, an economic downturn, a major foreign policy blunder, or monumental corruption. Last night’s election returns are primarily the result of our current economic downturn.

Clearly, Americans are looking to the Republicans to right the economic ship of state. In the election last night the Democrats were repudiated at Federal level, the State level, and the local level. Not only did the US House of Representative change hands but Republicans also picked up to 10 Gubernatorial seats as well taking control of at least 18 state chambers from Democrats. Republicans now control 54 state legislative chambers seeing a net gain of at least 680 seats in state legislatures. Last night confirmed the perception that America is a center-right country.

Or maybe we should say that the Center of the country is perceived as a center-right right country. One aspect of the election that is fascinating is that the Country looks like a sandwich with blue bread covering the red filling. The Democrats own the West and East Coast as well as major metropolitan areas in between while the Republicans own the larger part of flyover country. Any inroads the Democrats made into flyover country between 2006-2010 were almost completely wiped out last night. America is a divided country with fewer and fewer issues over which to find common ground.

Part of this division is augmented by the reality that Red Americans are divided with themselves. While Blue American true believers have no doubt about their progressive nature, Red Americans are a self-divided people. On one hand Red Americans desire want all the advantages of big government while on the other hand they say they want their individual liberty. On one hand Red Americans want all the perks of the welfare state while on the other hand they are angered at being taxed at the level it takes to run a welfare state. Americans are schizophrenic. I offer proof of this in the observation that the same voters who voted Republican in order to reign in spending are people who would instantly put Democrats back in office if Republicans actually began cutting entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, Government Schools, Educational grants, and other like programs. If one desires to balance the budget, it simply is the case that this is where one must go to cut.

Unfortunately, for America, turning the Democrats out of power and placing power in the hands of Republicans is like taking the keys from someone who was convicted for driving while intoxicated and giving them to someone recently convicted of hit and run. Republicans have never shown the will power to do what American have said, by their vote, that they want accomplished. Republicans, like those who voted them into office, are schizophrenic. On one hand they talk about fiscal responsibility but on the other hand they pass things like the prescription drug law for seniors as they did during the Bush administration.

All of this is part of the reason why I can say that the country is perceived as center-right. If the country was really center right it would demand the end to not only the new health care law but also the end to programs like Social Security, Medicare, Corporate Welfare, and government schools. If the country was really center-right it would demand the end to the Federal Reserve.

As such, I expect that Republican hegemony will be short lived as voters become frustrated with both their inability to turn the economy around as well as being aggravated at any genuine attempt to turn the economy around.

Pivoting slightly, another interesting result of the 2010 election is the increasing racial dynamic that is making up electoral politics. The 2010 election revealed white flight to the Republican party. This is significant given the fact that the Democratic party has long received the lion’s share of the Black and Latino vote. The harsh truth is that this also breaks down between the producers (largely, though not exclusively whites) increasingly coalescing in one party (Republican) while the profiteers of the American welfare redistribution system (largely, though not exclusively minorities) remain coalesced in the Democratic party. If this dynamic hardens it could make for some interesting political governance and campaigns in the near future.

For more details on this theme see,

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/03/exit_polls_unprecedented_white_flight_from_democrats__107824.html

One more thing that needs to be said before we close. As long as Ben Shalom Bernanke can massively inflate the money supply as he has done we see revealed why elections don’t matter and why the FED must be ended. As long as this kind of thing can be done, quite apart from legislative oversight, elections are largely a dog and pony show. If the FED can not be shut down then it really is not possible to correct the American economic affairs.

Educating Hart

http://oldlife.org/2010/10/30/freedom-for-home-schoolers-tyranny-for-infidels/

What I call attention to though is the contradiction between these pastors’ call for limited government regarding the family and their frequent requests for the state to uphold and defend the true religion. To put this matter graphically, would Bret and Tim be so willing to see a Wiccan family conduct home schooling? Maybe they would given their opposition to big government.

But how big a government would you have if the Westminster Assembly was right about the powers of the civil magistrate and Hilary Clinton as the next president of the United States had the power and duty to call and preside over the PCA General Assembly or the CRC Synod? At this point I believe Bret and Tim might finally come around to a 2k outlook (mind you, I no longer speak of worldviews).

Sigh … Dr. Hart should quit calling me “Rabbi,” and start calling me “Catnip,” for that is what I am to him. Our Hillsdale Scholar just can’t resist me.

First, we should note again, for Dr. Hart, that every government is in the business of upholding and defending a religion that they count as the “true one.” As there is no government from nowhere (i.e. — no government that isn’t animated by some religion) all governments always uphold and defend the religion that birthed them. Our current State upholds and defends the true religion of religious secularism. One wonders if Dr. Hart will get as exercised over the reality of our current government upholding and defending a pagan religion as he is over the currently remote possibility that some future government might defend and uphold the one true religion?

Second, with Darryl’s complaint about my call for Government officials to “Kiss the Son lest they perish in the way, by upholding and defending the one true catholic faith, he shows that it is his desire that Government officials not “Kiss the Son thus revealing a real lack of concern over the reality that government officials who will not kiss the Son will perish in the way.” Now, for a man who is both a Doctor and a Christian that is not very compassionate on his part.

Third, whether or not I would approve of a Wicca family homeschooling would depend upon whether or not they taught the finer arts of live human sacrifice (complete with a lab demonstration) in their curriculum. If they stay away from human sacrifice I’m sure Wiccans, with their solid family structures, should be allowed to home-school.

Fourth, Dr. Darryl reveals his worldview by insisting that he no longer speaks in terms of worldviews.

Fifth, what difference would it make if Hillary called and Presided over a Reformed Church general Synod? Much, if not most, of the Reformed institutional Church, as seen by Rev. Stein and Dr. Hart are simpatico, to one degree or another, with Hillary Clinton. Still, to answer Dr. Hart query I would say that if a pagan calls a convocation with the intent to violate the true religion it would be the responsibility of the Church to resist.

Dr. Hart’s profound insights was then followed up by a equally profound comment by another shining example of Christian intellectual depth,

Jolene Z. Commented,

I am shocked at the depth of “rage” (his words) and the tone of language used by “Rabbi Bret.” One thing missed in all his raging about the Pagan State intruding into families and education: the whole system of required education, with goals of universal literacy, educated citizens and community, is all a matter of law. Why not come out with a call to repeal mandatory education laws?

The key verb operating in Bret’s screed: “control” – He’s not interested in liberty but in control. If you can wrap schooling and education under ministerial/ecclesiastic control, so much the better for control-oriented ministers.

Jolene, obviously has never read much of Iron Ink because I do call for the repeal of mandatory education laws.

And certainly this lady must be kidding about the government schools providing universal literacy, educated citizens, and community or even having goals to that end? What planet does this lady live on?

The fact that Miss Jolene probably wrote her comment while smoking peyote can be seen in her accusation that I’m all about control. “Psst … Jolene … I am the one who wants parents to have the opportunity, apart from statist management, to educate their children.” Further Jolene, honey, whenever children are educated they are under the control of some ministerial control even if that ministerial control is the ministerial control of the parents in the home.

Maybe it is good that Darryl, is calling me Rabbit Bret now because whenever I read his blog I sense that I’ve fallen down Alice’s “Rabbit Hole.

Reformation Sunday … Christ Is Lord

“My Kingdom is not of This world.”

Jesus here confesses before Pilate that His Kingdom is not of this world. Before we speak to the issue of the nature of the Kingdom of Jesus we will define the idea of “Kingdom,” as the rule of God in the hearts of men.

The whole idea of the Kingdom of God, when reduced to its essence is merely acknowledging that Christ is a Lord who rules over men who occupy some kind of realm. The idea of a rule, apart from a realm where the rule is upheld is difficult to conceive.

The fact that Christ is Lord is seen in passages like Ephesians 1, which also gives us a glimpse into the realm – or Kingdom — over which Christ rules.

(God exerted is power) in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, 21far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. 22And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, 23which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

Here we see that Christ is Lord over all and I would submit that we also see that His explicit Kingdom is over all of reality.

There is great agitation and controversy about what Christ’s Kingdom actually means or concretely looks like in the real world. Most Christians will not argue with the abstract fact that Christ’s Kingdom starts with the reality that Christ is King and so should rule our lives and certainly our churches. Most would agree that the ascended Jesus who sits at the right hand of the Father over all rule and authority has been given a Kingdom over which He is the ruler, the Lord, and the King. Most would agree that in respect to their morals they should operate as a subject of Christ’s Lordship and as a member of His Kingdom. This would be consistent with the reality that the Scriptures teach that we have been translated from the Kingdom of Darkness to the Kingdom of God’s dear Son whom He loves.

However what has increasingly become a sticky wicket for many today is the question of whether or not the Kingdom that was entrusted to Christ is a Kingdom that in any way extends beyond the doors of the Church. Does Christ’s Kingdom and explicit Kingship extend beyond the Church doors? Does Christ’s Kingdom and explicit Kingship extend into the Science laboratory? Does Christ’s Kingdom and explicit Kingship extend into the way we educate so that our education ends up bringing our students to different conclusions about their subject matter than the conclusion reached by those who don’t affirm the Kingdom of God? Does Christ’s Kingdom and explicit Kingship extend into how we think about and how we do sociology or psychology? Does Christ’s Kingdom and explicit Kingship extend into the how we think about and do the arts? Economics? Politics? Philosophy?

In our current climate concrete notions of what Christ’s explicit Lordship looks like not only falls on deaf ears but it is actively resisted by Christians.

John 18:36 is often appealed to in order to prove that the Kingdom of God is a private individual spiritual personal reality that does not impinge on public square practice(s) of peoples or nations corporately considered. Those who appeal to John 18:36 in this way are prone thus to insist that God’s Word doesn’t speak to the public square practice(s) of peoples or nations since such an appeal (according to this thinking) would be an attempt to wrongly make God’s Kingdom of this world.

The problem with this though is it that it is a misreading of the passage. When Jesus say’s “My Kingdom is not of this world,” his use of the word “world” here is not spatial. Jesus is not saying that His Kingdom does not impact planet earth. What Jesus is saying is that His Kingdom does not find its source of authority from the world as it lies in Adam.

Jesus brings a Kingdom to this world that is in antithetical opposition to the Kingdom of Satan that presently characterizes this world in this present wicked age. The Kingdom that Jesus brings has its source of authority in His Father’s Word. As a result of Christ bringing His Kingdom w/ His advent there are two Kingdoms that are vying for supremacy on planet earth. Postmillennialism teaches that the Kingdom of the “age to come” that characterizes Christ’s present Kingdom will be victorious in this present spatial world that is characterized by “this present wicked age.”

All nations will bow to Jesus and all kings will serve him and his mustard seed kingdom will grow to become the largest plant in the garden with the nation-birds finding rest in its branches. His kingdom is the stone which crushed the kingdoms of men in Daniel 2 and which is growing to become a mountain-empire which fills the whole earth, until all His enemies are made His footstool.

Because Christ’s Kingdom is victorious on this planet His Kingdom extends beyond the personal private individual realm and so impacts the public square. Another way to say that would be precisely because Christ’s Kingdom continues to be populated by a swarming host of individuals those individuals take that Kingdom that has overcome them and in turn overcome all that they touch with the Kingdom.

Dr. Geehardus Vos was not a postmillennialist but some of the things he taught captures what I am trying to communicate regarding Christ’s Kingdom. Vos wrote,

“The kingdom means the renewal of the world through the introduction of supernatural forces.” (page 192)

“The thought of the kingdom of God implies the subjection of the entire range of human life in all its forms and spheres to the ends of religion. The kingdom reminds us of the absoluteness, the pervasiveness, the unrestricted dominion, which of right belong to all true religion. It proclaims that religion, and religion alone, can act as the supreme unifying, centralizing factor in the life of man, as that which binds all together and perfects all by leading it to its final goal in the service of God.” (page 194)

Geerhardus Vos

The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church

So, what Christ was saying to Pilate when He said “My Kingdom is not of this world” was “My kingdom does not gain it’s authority from Rome or the Sanhedrin. My authority comes from on high.” Pilate understood this. The irony is that the pagan tyrant understood, but Christians don’t today. So the authority of Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, but nonetheless, the kingdom has invaded this civil realm, the family realm, law realm, economics realm, and every other realm you can think of for “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” Every aspect of our social order is touched by the kingdom of God.

Now as to how this Kingdom manifests itself and works itself out. Rome said that the Church alone was the Kingdom and so insisted that everything must be brought into and under the Church if it wanted to be part of the Kingdom. Many Pietists and R2Kt types said (and say) that the Church alone was and is the Kingdom and that nothing else was and so insisted that all outside the Church was all outside the Kingdom and was common, but still good in virtue of the fact that it partakes of God’s creational common grace. The Pietists and R2Kt types engage the world but they engage it as a people who insist that the Word does not explicitly speak to the creational common realm. Christ’s rules over the common realm but His explicit Kingdom does not include the common realm. The Anabaptists said the Kingdom was the Christianity community and so insisted that all outside the Christian community was outside the Kingdom and was wicked, and so classical Anabaptist teaching withdraws from the world.

The Magesterial Reformers were against both Rome and the Anabaptists on this issue of the Kingdom. Reformed theology teaches, as we have noted, that there are two Kingdoms in this world in antithesis to one another. Each of these Kingdoms manifests itself consistent w/ it source of authority. Each of these Kingdoms is a body that has distinct organs that are assigned certain tasks to advance their version of the Kingdom. The heart of each antithetical Kingdom is their respective competing Churches. (For example … the church heart of the Humanist Kingdom in these united States are the government schools while the church heart of Christ’s Kingdom in these united States are faithful Christ proclaiming Churches.) However, in these respective Kingdom bodies there are other organs that are distinct and do other work.

So, a church is at the heart of the competing Kingdoms and where the heart is healthy all else will be healthy. The heart of Christ’s body Kingdom is faithful churches and those faithful churches, as part of the Kingdom, have as their source of authority Christ’s Word.
So, in the words of Mark Chambers,

“Both Kingdoms, though manifested spatially, are ideological and systemic. Ergo when Christ said ‘My Kingdom is not of the this world.’ He was not saying “My Kingdom is not on the surface of this planet. Jesus was not using ‘world’ in the sense of here but of what. He was talking type, not place.”

R. J. Rushdoony had some things to say regarding the affirmation that Jesus Kingdom is not of this world means that the Kingdom of God does not impact upon the public square.

“To deny that Christ’s kingdom is in this world is to alter the faith to either a neo-Platonic idealism or a Manichean dualism. In either case, the world and history are rejected and are handed over to the devil. Not surprisingly, such people who hold this view are insistent on seeing Satan as the prince of the physical universe and become implicit Satanists in the powers they ascribe to Satan. From such a perspective, the Church has little to do with history other than to rescue lost souls and then wait for the end.” (Institutes Vol. II)

Now how does this work practically? If we believe that Christ is King and has a Kingdom and if we confess that the Kings must Kiss the Son lest they perish in the way, and if we insist that all men must bow to Christ what standard shall we use in order for men to know that they are indeed bowing to Christ?

And the only answer to that, that I can see is God’s Law-Word. We believe and confess that Christ is King but what is a King without law?

Now, as we have said countless times it is clear that we are not saved by our law keeping but by Jesus Law keeping for us but this does not mean that we therefore are not ruled by every law-word that proceeds from His mouth. The fact that we are saved by grace alone does not mean that we live and move and have our being in our own fiat law-word.

No … as the Heidelberg catechism teaches we are freely and graciously saved to the end that we might do good works according to the law of God (qu. 90-91)

So when we talk about and celebrate Reformation it is just another way of celebrating the advance of God’s Kingdom in space and time History. In the 16th century God was pleased to visit His people with a great extension of His Kingdom.

Coming at just the right time with the advent of technology to advance it (Printing Press) and on the cusp of burgeoning world wide exploration that would find such exploration taking the effects of the Reformation to the new World the Reformation was God’s victory over His enemies.

However we live now in another time that needs Reformation. The Lordship of Christ is clouded for those who confess Christ. There is a need, once again to see Christ’s Lordship over every area of life.

Christ’s Lordship Over History

The first pillar of pagan history that Augustine challenged was the belief that history was a guided by the dialectic of chance and fate. Interestingly enough this dialectical view of history being guided by the dialectic of chance and fate was seen in a contemporary context in the film “Forrest Gump,” where the theme of the movie is how history is controlled by the dialectic of chance and fate. Augustine held instead that all of history was providentially controlled, providentially governed, and guided by the divine will of a extra-mundane personal God. In order to support this contention the Bishop of Hippo appealed to the OT theology where God is constantly portrayed as the Lord of History who held the nations in his hand like so much fine dust.

The second pillar of pagan history that Augustine dismissed was the belief that history could be explained by some kind of cosmic dualism. Augustine had been saved out of ancient Manichean dualism that taught that both evil and good were equally ultimate and that earth’s history is where these equally ultimate principles waged their battle. Augustine countered by teaching that evil is not a positive ultimate principle and did not have existence the same way that goodness does. Augustine believed instead that evil was a negation – a parasitic corruption of the originally good world. Like a tear in a shirt evil was merely a lack of good. It was nothing in and of itself. Augustine affirmed that good and evil stood in opposition to one another but he denied that evil was co-equal or co-eternal with good and taught that at the great assize humans would finally understand how evil found resolution in the context of God’s justice and God’s providence.

Historicism … that History can only be understood in light of itself. No objective reference point.

The third pillar of pagan history that Augustine critiqued was its cyclical view of history. Augustine believed and taught that history is linear and is moving towards the point of God’s ordained end. Augustine appealed to Scripture to overthrow the cyclical view of history that taught endless repetition of meaningless events by pointing to the book of Hebrews that teaches “For once Christ died for our sins; and, rising from the dead, He dieth no more.” Augustine also overturned this pagan cyclical view of history by teasing out its nihilistic implications. Augustine contended that if life is to have meaning or hope there must at least be the possibility of progress, noting further that an idea of progress can only exist where there is a sense that history has a set teleology. Without these sense of a history that is linear and has a destination life and history, in the words of Henry Ford, is nothing but “one damn thing after another.”

After Augustine dismantled pagan views of history he then proceeded to give the basic elements of a Biblical view of history.

1.) The God of the Bible is superior to the gods of paganism, nihilism, materialism, etc.
Throughout Augustine’s writings the Saint contrasts the God of the Bible with the pagan gods of Rome, as well as the unknown god of Neo-Platonism. All worldviews have a distinct Ontology and in Augustine’s work we see him insisting on the superiority of a Christian Ontology over the pagan dialectic Ontology where god is so transcendence that he has no contact with his (their) creation while at the same time so immanent he (they) are really nothing but humans said loudly.

2.) Creation Ex Nihilo

Christian views of History are what they are, largely due to the Christian doctrine of Creation. In the Christian view of history we have the teaching that God created the world out of previously non existing materials at a definite point of time in the finite past. This creative event, happening once, forms the temporal basis of all of history’s unique events to which Christianity alone, with its view of linearity, can attach significance and meaning. In a Christian view of history humanity plays a central role and as significance precisely because God set mankind at the center stage of his creation and at the center stage of his outworking of history (seed of the woman vs. seed of the serpent). In pagan views of history man is insignificant and without transcendent meaning since man is but one detail of the naturalistic world that has by both blind fate and random chance come into meaning. If in pagan views of history, history’s meaninglessness is summarized by “one damn thing after another,” in pagan’s views of history man’s meaninglessness is summarized as “man being just another damn existence among a host of damn existences.”

3.) Human Sinfulness

Augustine believed that man’s sinfulness necessarily divided the human race into two communities – The City of God vs. The City of Man. This corresponds nicely to the Reformed antithesis of The seed of the woman vs. The seed of the serpent. This human sinfulness, according to Augustine, divides men because occupants of each city have different aims, motives and principles. Augustine believed that human sinfulness was the most prominent thing that could be discerned in human history. Keep in mind though that this seemingly simple observation is unique to a Christian view of History because non Christian views of history have no transcendent reference point by which to adjudicate sin and no view of history that can define sin except as those things which have occurred which eventually came to be thought of as “bad” because some majority subjectively labeled those things as “bad.” Augustine had a measure by which he could adjudicate sin and righteousness in history.

4.) Redemption By Christ

Humans can escape the city of man and become citizens of the city of God because of the Redemption offered in Christ. The redemptive events in the life of Christ are unique events in history that end up giving significance and meaning to human history. In Christ man lives in the City of God and acts out his citizenship in that city by his involvement in the city of man. The result is that human history is suffused with meaning as men who have been redeemed bring their citizenship in that city to bear on their citizenship in the city of man.