So I took this test and this is what it said … INTP

I usually don’t like these things but I thought this one got it right — both good and bad.

Rational Portrait of the Architect (INTP)

Architects need not be thought of as only interested in drawing blueprints for buildings or roads or bridges. They are the master designers of all kinds of theoretical systems, including school curricula, corporate strategies, and new technologies. For Architects, the world exists primarily to be analyzed, understood, explained – and re-designed. External reality in itself is unimportant, little more than raw material to be organized into structural models. What is important for Architects is that they grasp fundamental principles and natural laws, and that their designs are elegant, that is, efficient and coherent.

Architects are rare – maybe one percent of the population – and show the greatest precision in thought and speech of all the types. They tend to see distinctions and inconsistencies instantaneously, and can detect contradictions no matter when or where they were made. It is difficult for an Architect to listen to nonsense, even in a casual conversation, without pointing out the speaker’s error. And in any serious discussion or debate Architects are devastating, their skill in framing arguments giving them an enormous advantage. Architects regard all discussions as a search for understanding, and believe their function is to eliminate inconsistencies, which can make communication with them an uncomfortable experience for many.

Ruthless pragmatists about ideas, and insatiably curious, Architects are driven to find the most efficient means to their ends, and they will learn in any manner and degree they can. They will listen to amateurs if their ideas are useful, and will ignore the experts if theirs are not. Authority derived from office, credential, or celebrity does not impress them. Architects are interested only in what make sense, and thus only statements that are consistent and coherent carry any weight with them.

Architects often seem difficult to know. They are inclined to be shy except with close friends, and their reserve is difficult to penetrate. Able to concentrate better than any other type, they prefer to work quietly at their computers or drafting tables, and often alone. Architects also become obsessed with analysis, and this can seem to shut others out. Once caught up in a thought process, Architects close off and persevere until they comprehend the issue in all its complexity. Architects prize intelligence, and with their grand desire to grasp the structure of the universe, they can seem arrogant and may show impatience with others who have less ability, or who are less driven.

You can take the test here,

Reduce your sentence … Commit a love crime

The State of Michigan, not wanting to fall behind the times, has decided that it wants to pass hate crimes legislation. Now here is something I just can’t get my mind around. I mean, I always grew up believing that the motive behind just about any crime was hate. I have never heard of the idea that there could be such a thing as a “love crime.”

It really does boggle the mind. Here we have a criminal who beats the snot out of some guy and we throw the book at him, not primarily because he beat the snot out of the guy, but rather because he hated him? What genius thinks up these laws? Do they really think that criminals sit around thinking about killing someone only to be brought up short of such intent because they think, “Damn it, I’d kill the guy but I know I’d get booked for a hate crime.”(?)

Then there is the whole issue of the message it sends to potential victims. Two victims on the same night both get mugged in separate instances two blocks apart. Lamont got mugged by Leroy but Han Lee got mugged by Reggie. Lamont had two knife wounds and a bullet in his leg. Han Lee walked away with a black and blue eye. But because both Lamont and Leroy were black Lamont only gets 3-5 years. However, because Han Lee was Asian Reggie gets 10-20 years because it was a hate crime. I guess Han Lee is more important then Leroy.

Yep, that makes sense.

Here is the moral of the story. If you’re going to commit a crime, make sure that you tell your victim, “Honey, I love you.”

If this culture gets any stranger I’m going to have to start sizing myself up for straight jackets.

Worldview Leverage Points & Daniel 9:24f — Seventy Weeks

Worldview leverage points

Those texts, events, or policies upon which there is a great contest over interpretation of what those things mean. In this contest it becomes immediately evident that something larger is driving various interpretations.

For example

The abortion debate
Causes of the hostilities in the nation that transpired between 1861-1865
Whether Homosexuals should be protected by civil rights legislation

These are all examples of Worldview leverage points. Your interpretation or conviction on these issues is largely decided for you before you even consider the particulars because of the worldview you’ve embraced.

Daniel 9:20-27 is a worldview leverage point in terms of

Christ’s Kingship manifested in this world
The success of the Gospel ministry

It becomes a flash point that can turn into intense disagreement.

Now one more thing that is true about what I am calling “Worldview leverage points” is that often proponents of varying Worldview leverage points will try to saturate a culture with their interpretation so that their interpretation becomes the cultural interpretive fallback point. In other words people seek to control the interpretation of these “Worldview leverage points” so that their interpretation becomes THE interpretation.

Example – The McCarthy Era has become a cultural touchstone that is immediately interpreted by almost everybody in such a way that McCarthy wears the evil black hat while the people he was interviewing regarding anti-patriotic activities were the downtrodden and persecuted. This interpretation is automatic because this issue at one time was a worldview leverage point and those who need the McCarthy era interpreted it a particular way and thus saturated the culture with their interpretation so that that interpretation has become the cultural fall back point.

However, “Blacklisted By History,” by M. Stanton Evans tells a different story.

Well, something like this happened in the Church when it came to Daniel 9:24-27 to the point that many people here, though perhaps having never thought a great deal on this passage already have certain assumptions about the text. In many respects that isn’t even their fault since their a-priori understanding was kind of built into the Church’s sub-culture through things like the films the Billy Graham movement made, and through things like the rise of the Bible Colleges in America, and through things like being able to print bibles that had notes in them that supported your Worldview leverage point, and through things like the songs that you were taught to sing in youth group growing up. (e.g. — “I wish we’d all been ready.”)

Because this is so, when a different understanding of the Worldview leverage point in question arises it becomes very difficult to see or understand because of the way that our hard-drives have been written upon.

So because of this understanding that all of us have largely unconsciously adopted I am going to compare and contrast the predominant interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 that has saturated most of our Church culture but is in fact only about 150 years old with a interpretation that is much older and satisfies the text far better.

The popular interpretation comes to us from the school of Dispensationalism. And because I grew up with this understanding as my fall back point it is almost easier to articulate then the position I now hold. It makes the following observations about this passage.

1.) Vs. 24 is a presentation of the whole prophecy

2.) 6 purposes of God (v. 24) are ultimately fulfilled only at the second coming of Christ

3.) Decree to restore & rebuild Jerusalem (v. 25) was issued in 445 by Artaxerxes (Ne. 2:1f)

4.) The seven sevens and sixty two sevens, when understood as 483 years of 360 days each, terminate shortly before the death of Christ

5.) Between the end of the 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week, there is an indefinite time gap, during which the prophetic clock is stopped for Israel and the church age transpires. (This time gap is nowhere suggested in Daniel’s text.)

6.) The entire 70th week is thus future and will begin when a future political leader makes a “covenant” with the people of Israel.

7.) At the beginning of the 70th week, the rapture of all believers will occur, yet life will continue on earth absent the believers.

8.) In the middle of this 70th week, the political leader will stop the renewed sacrifices that have begun in the rebuilt Jewish temple, and a period of great tribulation will commence in Israel.

9.) The 70th week ends with the coming of Christ.

So, as this focuses for the most part on the Second Coming of Christ this is often referred to as the Second Advent view of Daniel 9. Daniel 9 was read the way it, with a Dispensational “Gap,” in order to harmonize it with the rest of their Theology. In other words they developed a Theology and crammed Daniel 9 into their Theology.

Reaching behind the past 150 years when this interpretation became popular we find another view taught during the previous 1900 years in the Church. We will call this majority opinion interpretation the 1st Advent view of Christ’s coming. In this view the emphasis is laid on the finished work of Christ and the resultant punishment upon the Jews in AD 70 in the destruction of the Temple for rejecting their Messiah.

Now, keeping in mind the current popular view that we just gave let us contrast it with the 2nd Advent view.

The seventy sevens of v. 24 are 490 years. These seventy sevens are divided into three periods: seven weeks (49) years, sixty-two weeks (434 years), and one week (7 years). These time periods were specified so Daniel might “know and discern” the length of time involved, just as he had discerned the length and time in Jeremiah’s Prophecy (9:2).

Yet, if that “knowing and discerning” is the purpose of the passage, such knowing and discerning is impossible if an indefinite gap exists between the 69th week and 70th week as the current majority report insists. This is especially true given that the gap created by the majority report is already over four times longer than the entire 70 week period itself.

2.) It is possible that the decree of Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 2 is the decree mentioned by Daniel in 9:25. If we date 49 years from Artaxerxes word we find the streets and walls around Jerusalem had been completed. Some would prefer to begin the 70 weeks with Jeremiahs prediction that Jerusalem would be re-built. If we date 49 years from that point we find Cyrus permitting the Jews to return to Palestine. Regardless, which date we want to start from the point of this statement is that a very specific amount of time will pass between the decree and the coming of the Messiah. (No gap theory allowed.)

The six things to be accomplished during the 490 years in question (vs. 24) were all fulfilled in the first century.

a.) Finish the transgression – Israel’s sinful rebellion against God climaxed with her
rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah (Mt. 21:33-45, Acts. 7:51-52).

b.) Make an end of sin (seal up sins). Israel’s sins were reserved for punishment until
the generation that rejected the Messiah (Mt. 23:29-26).

c.) Make atonement for iniquity. This was fulfilled in Christ’s atoning death. (Heb. 2:17, 9:12-14, 26; I Jn. 4:10)

d.) Bring in everlasting righteousness – This has been accomplished through the redemptive work of Jesus (Rom. 3:21-22)

e.) Seal up vision and prophecy. The eyes and ears of the Jews were “sealed” from understanding the prophecies of God (Is. 6:9-10, 29:10-11, Mt. 13:11-16, Jn. 12:37-41).

f.) Anoint the most Holy – The Most Holy (Christ – anointed one) was anointed in His ascension to the right hand of the Father. (Heb. 9:22-28)

4.) After the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks, which would imply a time during the seventieth week the Messiah is “cut off.” That is he is cut off from His people – He suffers the death penalty.

5.) At an (unspecified) point following the cutting off of the Messiah, the city and sanctuary are destroyed. The destruction of Jerusalem (v. 26-27) in A.D. 70 was a consequence of the rejection and crucifixion of Christ. It is not said by Daniel to occur within the 70th week.

6.) The one who confirms a covenant in vs. 27 is the Messiah in vs. 26. That the antecedent “He” is not the Prince of vs. 26 is confirmed in several ways:

a.) the word “prince” is not even the subject of the sentence in vs. 26. Main subject is Messiah.
b.) The “end” in vs. 26 is the “end of destruction” not the end of the prince
c.) The Messiah is the focus of the entire passage.

7.) The Messiah did fulfill or confirms the stipulations of the old covenant, and Christ’s covenantal work was directed toward the many (faithful Jews) for almost exactly seven years or one of Daniel’s weeks. The 3.5 years of Christ’s own ministry were focused primarily on the Jews (Mt. 10:5, 15:24), and for approximately 3.5 years after his death and resurrection, the ministry of His apostles was focused almost exclusively on the Jews (Acts 1:8, 2:14, Rom. 1:16, 2:10).

8.) Christ did put an end to sacrifices by His once for all Sacrifice on the Cross (Heb. 8-10, esp. 10:2,9, 12)

9.) The text of Daniel, while providing a clear statement of the events, which mark the end of the sixty-ninth week and the middle of the seventieth week, says nothing about an event marking the end of the seventieth week. It is not necessary therefore to find such an event either in Scripture or history. (contra dispensationalists)

In Daniel 9, we find the coming of the Messiah predicted to the exact year and are told what must come to pass in order for the Kingdom promises to be fulfilled.

The above blockquote from Keith Mathison’s “Postmillennialism,” Appendix one.

Repenting Of Christianity And Converting Again

“The institutional Christianity that flourishes today is no longer the same religion as that practiced by Charlemagne and his successors, and it can no longer support the civilization they formed. Indeed, organized Christianity today is the enemy of the West and the race that created it.”

Sam Francis
Deceased American Man Of Letters

Not only would it be the case that the institutional Christianity that flourishes today be unrecognizable to Charlemagne but it also would be unrecognizable to Gregory the Great, Augustine of Hippo, Charles “The Hammer” Martel, The Christian King Louis IX, Godfrey of Bouillon, Baldwin I, and any number of Christian leaders you might care to name.

Our leaders today are frightened of Christianity. The Prince Of Wales desires to change his eventual title from “Defender of the Faith” to “Defender of the Faiths.” American leaders with a marginal leaning towards Christianity are cowed by the worldview materialism of reporters and competitors, and well they should be since most of them who lean Christian are some strain of Pentecostal and so no have no idea of what they believe and why they believe it and what they don’t believe and why they don’t believe it. American political leaders who lean Christian do so with the most pious, sentimental and shallow Christianity imaginable. The Christianity they embrace is a extraordinarily weak variant of that Christianity which those men named above embraced, and as such it can only wither in the face of the onslaught of materialism.

Cultural Marxism, to date, has triumphed in the West. The hour is late, though not to late, for Christianity to keep the sun from setting on the West. But in order for that to happen we have a need to embrace the Christianity that made the West and be forever done with the thin gruel Christianity that is our sickness. Cultural Marxism laughs in the opposition that emasculated Christianity offers, and when these two combatants meet the result is that Christianity is captured to serve as yet one more vehicle for the means of triumph by the Cultural Marxists.

We have need to repent of our Christianity and pray God that he will convert us to the 100 proof variety.

A Conversation On The Law


What do you mean by ‘God’s Law-Word’? I suspect you mean Moses’ Covenant, or at least that’s how you’ve used it in the past.


There is only one covenant of Grace, of which the Mosaic covenant is an extenuation and development of consistent with, yet not identical to, the covenant of Grace’s initial inauguration.

That the Mosaic Law was gracious, take for example, the preamble to the Mosaic covenant law,

“I am the Lord Thy God who brought thee out of the Land of Egypt, out of the House of bondage.”

Notice here that before the stipulations of the covenant are incarnated onto the tablets that God pronounces how His grace had been already extended to His people by covenantal deliverance. It was not the case, for the Israel of God, in the Mosaic covenant, that they had to keep the law and so earn saving grace but rather it was the case, as the preamble to the covenant Law shows, that God remembered His gracious covenant with Abraham (Ex. 2:24-25) and so led His people out of Sin (Egypt) with the expectation that they would obey out of grateful hearts (Ex. 19:4-5). It was only those who were not of the Israel of God who tried to use the Law as a means to put God into their obligation by an attempted obedience that refused to take into consideration God’s prior graciousness.

Your ongoing error, Judy, is to think that God ever offered, in His covenant of Grace, a period of time where His people could be saved by their own obedience. In the Mosaic covenant those Christians who were saved were saved by a grace alone that was consequentially marked by ever increasing, though never perfect, obedience.

Judy comments,

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the Mosaic Covenant as the original covenant of works — see the relationship between WCF 19.I and II: “This law, after [Adam’s] fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables…”

Bret responds,

And that is entirely true and I don’t disagree with a word of it. The Law was (and is — even for the Christian) a perfect rule of righteousness. The Law was never given in the Mosaic covenant so that God’s covenant people could think they could keep it. The Law was given to show people their sin and a need to look outside of themselves for deliverance (hence the OT sacrifices which proleptically gave them Christ). However, for the Israel of God who was looking away from themselves to Christ, the Law was God’s gracious instruction (think third use of the Law here) in all righteousness.

So, those who were not of the Israel of God looked to the Law as an end in itself for Salvation in a covenant of works type of fashion and so were condemned by the Law whereas those who were the true Israel of God looked to the Law as an end for glorifying the God who had freely and graciously saved them and as a means for incarnating that free salvation into every area of their living.

This twofold working of the law in both condemnation and salvation is consistent with how that theme plays itself out through Scripture. The waters of the flood were both God’s condemnation upon the wicked and God’s salvation upon the righteous. The extreme picture of God’s wrath and blessing found in the prophets are presented together because the one and same action of God leads to different consequences for people depending upon the relationship they stand to God.

This is why the Apostle can say in the Holy Scriptures that the Law is Holy, Just, and good and that His Gospel establishes the Law.

Judy offers,

Then WCF 19.III says that to the timeless moral law God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, all of which are now abrogated under the New Testament.

Bret responds,

Yes, I fully agree that the ceremonial law is abrogated. What Reformed person doesn’t believe that? Still, we must keep in mind that the ceremonial law is only abrogated because all that it was employed to communicate was fulfilled in the Messiah, Jesus. So, its not as if the ceremonial law was capriciously cast aside, rather the ceremonial law is deleted because all that it anticipated and promised was fulfilled.

And I believe that the timeless moral law remains timeless and that the Moral law was given both in its pure documentary form (The Decalogue) and then God was pleased to give us another aspect of His Moral law, sometimes known as case law. This was based upon the Moral law in order that we might know what the propositional law looked liked when it was incarnated into specific situations. Another way of saying this is that the case law illustrates the application or qualification of the principal laid down in the general commandment. The general equity of the commandment remains timeless, and this is why the Psalmist could say, “In thy law I meditate both day and night,” and it is why Jesus could say that, ‘heaven and earth would pass away but his word would never pass away’, and it is why Jesus said he came ‘not to abrogate the law but to fulfill it.’

The proper analogy is our own Constitution. There is the Constitution proper and then there is the case law that exemplifies what the Constitution means in concrete situations.

Judy offers,

Then 19.III says that to Israel also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

Bret responds,

And what I, and all Theonomists are arguing for is the general equity thereof. Allow me to give the classic example….

Because one of the sundry judicial laws that have expired is building a fence around ones rooftop, I no longer argue for rooftop fences. However, the general equity of that law remains and so I might argue for fences around swimming pools.

So, I am, and all theonomists are arguing for the general equity and are in perfect alignment with the WCF.

Judy offers,

The Larger Catechism limits the moral law to the Ten Commandments (LC, Q.98).

Bret responds,

Go back and re-read it Judy.

What it says is that the moral law is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments.

The answer does not say that the moral law is limited to the 10 commandments. It says that it is summarily comprehended in the 10 commandments. In other words, when one look to the Ten Commandments one finds the Moral law comprehended therein in summary form.

Besides, even should you should choose to use the word ‘limit’ it wouldn’t negate anything I am saying. All of the case law is not different law then the 10 commandments but rather only the Decalogue concretely applied to different situations. I hope that all that I contend for is nothing but that which is summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments.

Judy offers,

So the WCF says that all the ceremonial laws were abrogated (I thought only the terrible dispensationalists used that term), and that the judicial laws of Israel oblige no one, except in the sense that they might illustrate how a general principle of equity worked in a given case. But this exception presumes that a general principle of equity has been derived from someplace else.

Bret responds,

The judicial laws oblige no one except where the principle that they are articulating (general equity) is applicable. When that is the case then the judicial law, because it is an instantiation of the Moral law remains binding because God’s never revoked His moral law. It seems Judy that you desire the Moral law in the abstract but don’t desire it when its thrust is instantiated in space and time. With all due respect, it seems you want a Moral law that gives you the ability to interpret it, as you will. All, I’m asking for is that God be allowed both the Moral Law itself and whatever interpretations with which He saw fit to incarnate it.

Now as to your comment regarding ‘the general principle of equity’ allow me to offer that God Himself often gave the general principle of equity in the case law as the case law provides concrete examples of how the principle of the Moral Law was to be applied to different settings.

Judy offers,

The Westminster Divines sure weren’t Theonomists.

Bret responds,

The Westminster Divines were proto-Theonomists Judy. They certainly were. You’re problem is that you are reading the WCF through your lenses. I have read Samuel Bolton (one of the Westminster Divines) on this very subject. Believe me Judy, you would be shocked by Bolton and would be accusing him of hyper Theonomy. I must take the interpretation of Bolton (A Westminster Divine) over your interesting interpretation of the Westminster.

Judy offers,

Bret, you said that the old-time dispensationalists were only Christians after a fashion? How can you be an ‘after-a-fashion Christian?’ You mean they only had the objective markers of covenant membership? You’re saying they weren’t real Christians.

Bret responds,

Only God and the individual concerned with this question regarding their own position relative to Christ knows who ‘real’ Christians are Judy. I am content with saying that Dispensationalists stood in some type of proper relation to Christ and His Church and as such should be spoken of with Charity as Christians. I hope that people will speak with such Charity of me some day.

Judy asks,

Bret are you saying that if we’re not a Theonomist like you, then we don’t believe in Scriptural morality at all?

Bret answers,

Now, come, come, Judy. How many times have you heard this type of line from unbelievers in your witnessing efforts?

For example,

“Judy, are you saying that if we don’t believe just like you then we are going to hell.”?

And your response no doubt is…

“No, I am not saying, ‘if you don’t believe just like me you are going to Hell, I am saying that if you don’t believe as Scripture requires you are going to Hell.’”

And so I say to you,

” No, I am not saying that if you’re not a Biblical Christian like me, then you don’t believe in Scriptural morality at all, I am saying that if you don’t believe as Scripture requires then you need to know the way more perfectly”[/quote]

As do we all,