Monthly Archives: July 2016

Appropriate Tactics for Today

From North’s Guerilla Tactics: The Early Phase:

What is our appropriate tactic? It is two-fold. First, at the visible level, a handful of writers maintain both offensive and defensive ideological tactics. Second, at the local level, the troops build up working programs that benefit the Church: private schools, unwed mothers’ homes, help ministries, and similar charitable works. Confrontations should be limited to public efforts to change people’s minds: not the dedicated opponent’s mind, but the mind of those who have not yet decided. The goal is to undermine confidence in the opposition’s policies and programs. This goal will work if our opponents’ foundations are really weak. Given the quality of their published responses so far, they must be incredibly weak.

The divide is between those who fight with their pens (or keyboards, in today’s world) and those who fight with their actions – or, in today’s world, money.

This means that at the local level, the actions of most of us who want to bring about the Kingdom of God in the here and now need to set up private schools (or, better yet, homeschooling networks), unwed mother’s homes, and various help ministries. I recommend that churches should start preparing to help their membership through a major recession (where many will be carrying a heavy debt load).

Useful links:

Note the distinct lack of Islamic-style or Communist-style tyrannical empires or self-destructive violence. Sure, Christian Reconstructionists – like all humans – have a right to self-defence… but that’s it. We are here to redeem, rebuild, and reconstruct a civilization: no crazies, fools, or defenders of lost causes need apply.

When today’s dying culture breathes it’s last, we shall only grow faster. And, I pray, even wiser and obedient to the will of God!


Multiverse vs. God

From Uncommon Descent:

Possibly struggling to survive, New Scientist claims there is a 2500 year struggle between God and the multiverse:

Modern physics has also wrestled with this “fine-tuning problem”, and supplies its own answer. If only one universe exists, then it is strange to find it so hospitable to life, when nearly any other value for the gravitational or cosmological constants would have produced nothing at all. But if there is a “multiverse” of many universes, all with different constants, the problem vanishes: we’re here because we happen to be in one of the universes that works.More.

The rest is an avoidable paywall.

Put simply, the multiverse idea only ever got started because New Scientist types needed a universe that originated randomly. It never had any other existence anywhere ever.

See also: The multiverse

That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. “My atheistic presuppositions require a multiverse, to escape the inevitable, inescapable logic of a Creator-God. There is no other reason for a multiverse to exist.”

Science fictions, indeed!

Cut-rate White Slavers, and their White Enablers

From the Gates of Vienna’s “Questioning the Sanity of Liberals

Classical liberalism meant a belief in the democratic process, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, equality of opportunity (although never quite couched in such terms), the presumption of innocence, small government, the individual before the group, religious freedom, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the rights of the child, an obligation to help the genuinely disadvantaged in society and, generally speaking, a live and let live laissez-faire attitude. It was the product of many hundreds of years of gradual evolution encompassing Christianity, the reformation, the enlightenment, common law, the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It was a cause for the good and the term liberal one to be worn with pride.

How does this square with the self confessed metropolitan liberals of today? Imagine the smooth young advertising executive, hosting a dinner party in Greenwich village or Notting Hill, suddenly announcing to his Armani-clad coterie of media and public relations friends that, whilst holding himself up as a liberal, he disapproved of mass immigration, multiculturalism, state education’s socialist propaganda, the European Union, same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, atheism and feminism.

As jaws dropped around the table some embarrassed diners would make their polite excuses and fumble for the keys to their oh so green Toyota Prius, whilst others, white-faced and shaking with genuine anger, would accuse him of racial bigotry, sexual bigotry, nationalism, religious fundamentalism and xenophobia. Yet whilst these proud young members of the privileged, cosseted elite may believe that they and they alone hold the moral credentials that personify the term liberal, they fail to understand that all their beliefs are the antithesis of true liberalism, that they have followed a long and winding path from the classical liberalism of 1900 to that which they are today — Totalitarian and Fascistic. In short they had mutated from Classical Liberalism to Politically Correct Liberalism.


Whilst they are busy beavering away at these destructive antics, the Liberal will demonise, vilify and intimidate, both verbally and physically, any opponents who stand in his way. By such repressive actions he again casts himself into the same mould as Hitler, who once said: “A systematically one sided argument must be adopted towards every problem that has to be dealt with. He must never admit that he might be wrong, or that people with a different point of view might be right. Opponents should not be argued with; they should be attacked, shouted down, or if they become too much of a nuisance, liquidated”.

The thing about totalitarians are that they are such a bore, as well as a hinderance to progress.

The Liberal’s repressive attitude toward free speech can be seen on University campuses across the West today, even if liquidation is a step too far. Hilary Clinton was/is a firm advocate of such behaviour, having immersed herself as a none-too-attractive youth in “Rules For Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. Yet whilst they shout down and intimidate the defenders of Western society, they seem blissfully unaware of the destruction their policies have inflicted on the young, the poor and the elderly – the very people the Liberal purports to represent, and the future international consequences that their peculiar ideology of multiculturalism can only bring about.

The author argues that the main driver of Liberals is not the desire of a New World Order, but an unquenchable narcissism. If you see narcissism as a form of self-worship, coupled with the desire to inflict pain on others, he is quite correct.

The writer, Paul Weston, greatly regrets the damage these fools had done to his own White European race and culture, and well he should. However, I tend to take Gary North’s view: people choose their leaders, and this class of incompetents would never have come near the levels of powers, if both the masses and the upper classes didn’t support them.

After all, all these people – including the Clintons, Tony Blair, and the rest of the lot – were elected by primarily white electorates; and the conservative parties – also elected by the same white electorate – soon toed the liberal line.

“Let the dead bury the dead” is North’s advice in Voluntarily Disarmed: The Impotence of the Victims in Western Europe and Demographic Suicide: Europe, Pat Buchanan, and Islam.

I can but agree. Nobody forced the White EuroAmerican nations to dump God and Law, and go into the destruction of their own world and wealth, as a way to gain pleasure and show their power in the here and now. Nobody forced the UK to join the Common Market, or the EU; and nobody forced Merkel to open the gates to the Muslims.

Would God bless White repentance, even at this late date? I am 100% confident of this: there would still be great pain, but at least they would have a future, and a land to call their own.

Is it going to happen? Excluding a miracle – and miracles do happen – I am confident that it won’t.

Even when we all know that the Amish is the fastest-growing white population, the white racial leadership just can’t stomach the humility needed to go that route. They pour their energy into Trump: but even if he was given all the power he wants, he can’t rebuild a nation past her prime, or increase the White birth rate.

(Although getting out of NATO, the UN, and all those alliances would at least get the US out of an endless string of stupid wars.)

While the White Nationalists and the White working class look to Trump, Christians of all races would be well-advised to focus on their own local communities. We will not be saved by Mighty Leaders of whatever party, or whatever name or race. “It’s going to be up to you.”

One-sided race-blaming isn’t going to cut it, either: there’s lots of blame and grief and sin to go around, plenty for all the races in America to repent of. Dumping the Liberal Empire – the common enemy of American Indians and Blacks, and ever-more obviously of Whites as well – would do wonders for a start, as well as a renewed commitment to local, county-based rule.

Tragic Conspiracies and the POWs

Ron Uz, upon the seat of Sydney Schanberg:

Last week America suffered the loss of Sydney Schanberg, widely regarded as one of the greatest journalists of his generation. Yet as I’d previously noted, when I read his long and glowing obituary in the New York Times, I was shocked to see that it included not a single word concerning the greatest story of his career, which had been the primary focus of the last quarter century of his research and writing.

The cynical abandonment of hundreds of American POWs at the end of the Vietnam War must surely rank as one of the most monumental scandals of modern times, and the determined effort of the mainstream media to maintain this enormous governmental cover-up for over four decades raises serious doubts about whether we can believe what our newspapers report about anything else.


But the vast majority of my readers, perhaps being of a younger generation, were quite surprised to read my presentation, presumably having always vaguely assumed that talk of the “abandoned POWs” was just some Hollywood-inspired myth of the 1980s, generated by the success of the Rambo movies of the Reagan Era and continued by the populist paranoia of Ross Perot, before gradually fading away with the passage of time. I can’t really blame them because until just a few years ago that was exactly my own impression.



But perhaps it is exactly that past ignorance and disinterest in the Vietnam War and the ensuing POW controversy that affords me some reasonable objectivity on the issue, allowing me to analyze the facts much as I would a historical puzzle from Ancient Greece. And once I finally encountered both sides of the story in late 2008, the evidence in favor of the reality of the POWs seemed absolutely overwhelming.

SO that’s the setting. And now, the tragedy:

When I discovered Schanberg’s stunning 8,000 word expose online, an article rejected by nearly every significant publication in America, my first step was to locate copies of the conflicting articles that had once seemed so persuasive to me, and reread them much more carefully. Once I did that I realized that the factual argumentation they had provided had been extremely thin. Their contents heavily focused on the cultural and ideological aspects of the POW movement, with the possible reality of any POWs casually dismissed upon rather scanty evidence. What I had been reading was cultural criticism rather than investigative journalism.

To a considerable extent, the rightwing POW activists played into the hands of their critics by presenting the facts of the case upside down, framing their arguments in a way sure to attract the scorn of most reporters. Activist rhetoric was heavy with denunciations of the “treacherous” Communists in Hanoi, who cruelly kept our American POWs still imprisoned despite the peace agreement that ended the war. To any objective journalist, this surely sounded paranoid and ridiculous. Why would the Communists want to keep the American POWs? Out of pure evilness or something?

But the reality was exactly the opposite. It was the American government that had been treacherous, by refusing to pay the Vietnamese the $3.25 billion in reparations that they had demanded at the Paris Peace Talks as a price for ending the war and returning the POWs. If you buy a car and you refuse to pay, is it “treacherous” if the car dealer never delivers your vehicle?

The problem had been that for domestic political reasons the Nixon Administration chose to pretend that the promised payment of the money was unconnected with the prisoner return, instead labelling it “humanitarian assistance.” Unsurprisingly, Congress balked at providing billions in foreign aid to a hated Communist adversary, and Nixon, weakened by the growing Watergate Scandal, couldn’t admit that unless the money were delivered, Hanoi would refuse to return the remaining POWs.

The American government, due to the pride of Nixon, let both South Vietnam and its own soldiers to rot and die.

Indeed, perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Franklin’s piece is that although he devotes 21 pages of magazine text to exhaustively exploring almost every cultural aspect of the so-called “POW Myth,” including detailed plot summaries of several Hollywood action movies, he never once even mentions the $3.25 billion in reparations that America had promised Vietnam and then never paid, which likely constitutes the key to the entire political mystery. I find that omission highly suspicious and wonder whether he (or his editor) feared that providing such a telling clue might lead his readers to reconsider the entire logical framework being presented to them.

The Establishment does do an occasional lie of commission… but most of its lies are that of omission.

Harder to fight that way.

Lesson learned: Don’t Trust the Masters.


Why I Despise Seminaries

In addition to being a completely unbiblical requirement, that loads up debt and wastes the time of the budding preacher… while doing its level best to destroy the drive to preach at best, and destroy his Christian faith at worst.

From North’s article, The Problem with Seminaries:

So, you want to become a minister. First, however, you need training. You think you should go to seminary. A word of warning: seminaries are staffed by people who learned to write term papers in their teens or early twenties, and who then decided to parlay that peculiar skill into lifetime employment. Seminaries are not staffed by successful ex-pastors; successful pastors remain in the ministry. Seminaries are staffed by baptized college professors…

And we all know how much college professors love the Christian faith, right? RIGHT?

The seminary was invented in the early nineteenth century by a small group of Presbyterians who correctly concluded that the colleges of America had gone sour theologically and could therefore no longer be entrusted with the task of training ministers. This was Princeton Theological Seminary. They began this project in 1811, just before the War of 1812. (Princeton Seminary was always separate from Princeton College.)

The seminary was a makeshift addition to American higher education because the established colleges, one by one and without exception, by the nineteenth century were becoming humanistic, i.e., Unitarian. They went Greek, in other words. I don’t mean Greek letter fraternities and sororities, a later development; I mean they went Greek. They became consistent with their classical presuppositions. They abandoned trinitarian theology as an unnecessary hypothesis. Then, in the years after the Civil War, they went Darwinist. They abandoned even the Unitarian god.


The seminaries did not make a clean break with Greece. The log college Presbyterians were evangelists, leaders in the second Great Awakening. Their successors were less enthusiastic about revivalism. They were more interested in scholarship. […] there was an inherent tendency to go in the direction of antiquarianism: knowledge for its own sake.

Similarly, professors of systematic theology tended in those days to be specialists in the technicalities of philosophy, meaning humanism, and they mixed their theological expositions with the arcane insights of dead pagan philosophers.

Well, that’s going to do wonders for the Christian Faith. *rolls eyes*

Another problem of the seminary has been that it is regarded as a place only for previously certified scholars. Seminaries required young men to go through the gauntlet of college before enrolling. After all, one supposedly needs educated ministers, i.e., men trained and then officially certified by God’s enemies. The pastor of 1830 was supposed to be a liberally educated person, meaning a man skilled in Attic Greek, Latin, mathematics (especially geometry), and classical history, and then–and only then–an expert in systematic theology. Even here, the dominant theological framework was that of Protestant scholasticism: a system based on the six loci of seventeenth-century theology, the Protestant response to the Aristotelianism of the scholasticism of the Counter-Reformation. And so it is today: theology proper, anthropology, Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. A lot of “ologies,” but not much on evangelism. Not much on ethics, either. And what ever happened to creationism, biblical chronology, the covenant, and creeds?

To make sure the seminary faculties had to suffer their fair share of gauntlet-running, they strongly advised prospective faculty members to attend German universities where the full-time God-haters, the “higher critics” of the Bible, were holding forth.

And then, one by one, the seminaries also went liberal. Surprise, surprise!

The Establishment laughs and laughs, as Christians raise up seminary after seminary.

The Humanist’s Target

The institutional strategy of Satan is always collectivist. He must imitate God, and God is omniscient. Satan is not. Thus, he needs information. He needs a chain of command, with his subordinates–not morally impeccable sources–supplying him with data. Also, he is not omnipotent, so he needs a top-down hierarchy through which he can issue commands.

The humanists in the U.S. spotted what was obvious by the eighteenth century: the key institution to capture was the college. This institution trained the nation’s professionals, especially ministers. Thus, they began a program of infiltration and subversion. The Unitarians captured Harvard in 1805. The rest of the colleges followed.


Their operating model had always been the Roman Catholic church, the most successful bureaucracy in the history of the West. Later, their model became the Jesuit order. (Calvin and Loyola had studied at the University of Paris at the same time.) The humanists realized by 1670 that they would have to capture the seminaries to capture the prestige denominations. The seminary was the ultimate sitting duck: the Christians’ version of the professional certification system. The prestige churches had bought the devil’s line: no undergraduate gauntlet, no seminary training; no seminary degree, no ordination.

By the grace of God, only the stagnant Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Lutherans believed such institutional nonsense. (Can you imagine Calvin or Martin Luther requiring each candidate for the ministry to graduate from an accredited university, when all of them were Roman Catholic? That would have made more sense than requiring seminary candidates to graduate from the Darwinian swamps of today.) By the end of the second Great Awakening (1850’s), the Baptists and Methodists had become dominant in the U.S., as they have remained, and for many decades, they paid little or no attention to seminary education.

The Presbyterians and Episcopalians got their educated ministry, and the majority of them by 1935 were liberals. The Lutherans took a bit longer. By means of the seminary, Satan had captured the prestige (hierarchical) churches in a little more than a century.

Didn’t take too long, now did it?

So it always is, when Christians hunger for the approval of wealth, prestigious, powerful men… who see Christians with nothing but seething hate and malicious contempt.

Why on earth do Christians insist on licking the boots of the enemies of God?
Why on earth do Christians insist on crawling and begging for their approval?

Ministry Through Ministering

“Then he arose, and went after Elijah, and ministered unto him.” Here is the mark of the minster: he ministers. He ministers initially to another minister. This is the diaconal model. He finds a representative of God who is busy ministering to God’s people, and he attaches himself to that representative. He becomes an apprentice.

The apprenticeship system is God’s model. This is why the modern world is so hostile to apprenticeship. The devil’s system is certification by committee, not the students imitation of individually skilled performance. His organizational system is top-down and as impersonal as possible; God’s is bottom-up and as personal as possible. Satan’s system is based on the assumption of cosmic impersonalism (especially after Darwinism); God’s is based on the assumption of cosmic personalism: the absolute sovereignty of a trinitarian personal God.

The economist and social philosopher F. A. Hayek has for over four decades argued that the knowledge imparted by the free market is vastly more accurate and comprehensive than knowledge imparted by a central planning committee. Hayek devoted his later career to opposing top-down bureaucracy as a method of organizing economic production. Hayek’s point is that real-world knowledge is more complex than anything that can be written down in a manual or tested at the end of the term.

You can test his thesis by writing down the steps you must go through to tie a shoelace. Then give your instructions to someone else. See how fast he can tie his shoelace by following your detailed instructions. To make things interesting, if you’re right-handed, describe the proper approach for someone who is left-handed.

If learning how to tie a shoelace requires apprenticeship, what about learning how to start and run a church?

Wouldn’t it be wonderful of Churches would actually follow the model of pastoral training authorized in the Bible?

“But we can’t do that: pagan academics, who wish to only see Christians fail and fail and fail, forever… those academics insist that we shouldn’t obey God’s written commandments here… or anywhere else, actually…”

“And we should never do anything that would earn their disapproval, should we?”


Physicians are forced to go through internship programs. This makes sense. […] There is also at least a loose relationship between what physicians study in the classroom and what they face daily in the hospital.

Not so with seminary students. What they face in the seminary classroom is at least as far removed from the day-to-day problems of the gospel ministry as what the M.B.A. faces in the business world. It may be even farther removed.

Example: the seminary student is asked to prepare a sermon. He takes 20 hours to do this a few times during his seminary career. No one tells him that he had better not take over two hours per sermon in his pastorate, and that he needs at least 50 sermons in hand when he walks into his first pastorate. No one tells him what a church budget is. No one tells him that if he marries a girl from the congregation, he has to leave, since there are a dozen mothers in that congregation saying to themselves, “So he thinks she is better than my Debbie? Well, we’ll see about that!”

What he learns at seminary is that Schleiermacher was dead wrong.

Not much about facing the actual problems of ministry here, hmmm…


Denominations really do not think a graduate school of theology is worth the money. They are wrong. They do think a seminary is worth the money. They are wrong again. So they try to kill two birds with one stone. They set up a school of theology to train ministers. Both birds then die. The denominations either shrink (if they somehow keep their theology professors orthodox) or go liberal and then shrink three generations later.

What churches have done is preposterous. They have hired theologians to train future ministers. Theologians should train theologians; ministers should train ministers. This is so obvious that only a theologian could fail to grasp it.

The church in Jerusalem grew by 3,000 in one day (Acts 2:41). Where did their ministers attend seminary?

Five billion people need to hear the gospel and join God’s church today. Want to make sure that 99 percent of them go to hell in the next 70 years? Easy! Just require a seminary degree for all pastors. Just ignore apprenticeships.

By their actions, it is obvious that denominational leadership believe that God’s explicit commands comes second – if that – compared to the certification and approval of atheistic academics, the most dedicated enemies of God this side of Mecca.

People who actually love Jesus obey His Law-Word: and these people had better think and act in a much more Biblical fashion than the seminary and denominational leadership does.


Requirements for a Magistrate


The conscientious Christian desires to glorify God and obey His Word in all that he thinks and does. This desire extends to his actions as a Christian citizen. Perhaps one of his more important actions as a citizen is that of voting for the men who will serve as magistrates over him.  So as each election draws near he seeks to determine which candidate he should endorse with his vote. Throughout the process of deciding he receives much advice, such as: vote Republican; vote for the conservative; vote for the one who is pro-life; vote for the one who stands closest to you on the issues; vote for “x” even though he is less than desirable because if he doesn’t win, then we will have “y” who is even worse; and so on.

However helpful this kind of advice may be, the Christian who believes that the Word of God is able to instruct him in righteousness and equip for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17), including the work of voting, will necessarily turn to the Scripture for guidance. The Bible contains explicit instructions concerning the qualifications for civil officers, and to these the Christian ought to look as he determines who he will support with his time, money, and vote. There are two primary texts that set forth the standards for choosing civil magistrates: Exodus 18:21 and Deuteronomy 1:13.


In Exodus 18, Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, advises Moses to appoint men to help him in governing and judging the nation, lest he wear out both himself and the people (18:17-19). An important aspect of Jethro’s counsel[1] to Moses is in regard to the kind of men that he should appoint as rulers. The character of the men chosen must be according to the following standards:

Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating coveteousness. . . (Ex. 18:21).

<…huge snip…>


In Deuteronomy chapter one, Moses recounts the events that took place forty years earlier at Mount Sinai. One of these events was the appointment of rulers to serve with him in governing the nation in accord with the advice of Jethro (Ex. 18:13-26). In speaking of the appointment of rulers he does not mention Jethro, for Moses knew that God was using Jethro to direct him in that circumstance. The account of the appointing of rulers to assist Moses in judging the people given here provides further insight on the biblical standards for the choosing of rulers.

First, Moses indicates that although he did the appointing, it was the people who actually chose their own rulers. Moses charges the people to “take you wise men. . . .” The word “take” means to provide or choose, while the word “you” means for yourselves. Therefore, Moses gives the people the responsibility of selecting their own leaders. Moses then appointed (installed into office) those chosen by the people.

Second, Moses provided the people with specific standards for determining which men were qualified for the office of civil judge and ruler. The citizens have the responsibility of choosing their own rulers, but they are not free to choose whomsoever they will. Rather, they are charged by Moses to choose only those who meet certain qualifications. Moses states:

Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you (Deut. 1:13).

<…rest of the article…>

I recommend that you read the whole article, and digest it.

Significance and Consequences

From Gary North’s The Appleseed Principle

Taylor recognizes that the chief lures of bogus temporal immorality–fame, wealth, and power–are inevitably eroded by the acids of time. The temporal is not enough. He is correct: “Nothing is more important in contemplating the significance of one’s life than taking a transcendent, eternal perspective.” But what about immanence? What about this world? In what way is the transcendent linked to the historical? The Bible’s answer is clear: God’s covenant with His people.

Like as a rather pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him. For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust. As for man, his days are as grass: as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth. For the wind passeth over it, and it is gone; and the place thereof shall know it no more. But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children’s children; To such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them. The Lord hath prepared his throne in the heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all. Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word (Ps. 103:10-20).

Our actions actually matter in eternity, whether we want them to, or not.

Since this is how reality is structured, we had best stop complaining, and stop wishing for an escape from reality – through anonymity, mysticism, or even the rapture – and start thinking on how we want our actions to matter, and to shape the future.

The fast pace of modern capitalism reflects God’s warning about men’s limited quantity of time. Jesus said: “I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work” (John 9:4). Paul warned: “Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that steepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (Eph. 5:14-16). The point is, time is running out. We have limited amounts of it to make our mark. Time is the world’s only irreplaceable resource. This view of time has always been basic to capitalism, which was itself the product of Protestant culture.

In contrast, Roman Catholic countries tend to be slower-paced. The agrarian Old South of the United States was also slow-paced compared with the North; its culture, while Protestant, was not Puritan. It could not compete with the industrial North industrially, as the South learned during the Civil War, and its culture has steadily been swallowed up by the North’s, a fact lamented by twelve non-Christian southern “Agrarians” (literary figures) in the 1930’s in a classic book, I’ll Take My Stand. There is no better example of this transformation than the city of Atlanta, the city that Sherman’s army burned, which is today the boom city of the South.

No, you can’t even slow time down. You have to get moving, and you have to get moving now.

Making Our Mark

To make a meaningful mark on a piece of paper, you need a pen or pencil, “lead” or ink, a vision, an alphabet, literacy, and time. As far as the eternal future is concerned, covenant-keepers make their marks in ink; covenant-breakers make their mark in pencil. The work of the covenant-keeper endures; the work of the covenant-breaker is erased. The covenant-breakers mark endures in the lake of fire, but only with respect to him personally. He leaves behind nothing of enduring value except as the inheritance of covenant-keepers. “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (I Cor. 15:28).

Enemies of God, covenant-breakers, get little significance in this life, and none in the next.

It is the actions of the Christian, and of the Church, that matters.

True: individual believers and even Churches can rebel against their master… and the more consistent their rebellion, the more worthless they will be on earth.

If they despise and lie about God consistently enough, said apostate Church will diminish and die, and the Christian who refuses to call Christ his Lord and Saviour will be as damned as that early Christian, Judas Iscariot.

  • “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” – I John 2:19
  • “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” – Luke 6:46
  • “And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.” – Luke 9:23
  • “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” – Hebrew 12:14
  • “For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.” – Romans 8:29
  • “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” – James 2:14-20

(Also, see John MacArthur’s Bombshell)

This is why righteousness is cumulative while unrighteousness is not. Righteousness produces continuity; unrighteousness does not. It is cut short in the midst of time.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments (Ex. 20:4-6).

The temporal reference of the text is generations: those who love God are giving blessings for thousands of generations, i.e., through eternity. This is the fifth point of the covenant: continuity or inheritance.

In other words, The Good Guys are Going to Win!