Dante #3 (Biblical Analysis)

The speaker discusses the concept of The Great Bible Reset and America's return to the Book of the Covenant in Exodus 20-24. They argue that without this reset, the United States will face God's judgment. They contrast the idea of salvation in the Bible, which is a free gift from God, with Dante's political salvation. The speaker argues that Dante's global empire and the conservative passion for national sovereignty both have flaws. They discuss the authority of monarchy and argue that it comes directly from God, but should be checked by earthly authority. The speaker also talks about the Roman Empire's justification for waging war and Dante's view on unity. They conclude that mutual submission to the law of God and each other is the key to peace. The speaker criticizes the U.S. constitutional government and argues for a return to the law of God. They mention the need for a Great Bible Reset and cite biblical passages about the rule of Christ and the saints. The speaker recommends a bo Hey John, right in the middle of that number 2, Dante number 2 there, I cleared my throat really bad. I think it was around 5.30 or something like that. Maybe go in there and clean that up a little bit. Welcome again to TheGreatBibleReset.com. The Great Bible Reset being America's return to the Book of the Covenant in Exodus 20-24. Without this Great Bible Reset, the United States will continue to spiral down into the abyss of God's judgment. The Bible teaches salvation is a free gift of God. It cannot be earned in any sense. It is given by the atoning death of Christ for the sins of mankind. It's imputed as a forensic judicial act apart from works when the sinner trusts Christ. Unlike Dante's political salvation, God thwarted the builders of Babel and their one world state in Genesis 11, 7-8 by confusing the tongues. He forced the creation of nations, men, quote, scattered abroad from there over the face of the whole earth, God hath made of one blood all the nations of men and determined the bounds of their habitation, according to Acts 17-26. He intended that they should seek the Lord by doing that. Dante voids this divine judgment with his international monarchy. He takes up where the builders of Babel left off. But on the other hand, the conservative passion for national sovereignty leaves the nation-state the final arbiter of justice. Accountable to no one, it's an invitation of bickering among nations and war. Enter Dante's global empire, the U.S., and its so-called rule-based order by some 800 military bases. Instead, Psalms 2 calls rulers to submit to Christ, and Acts 2 says this psalm applies to the New Testament era. Likewise, Psalm 72 describes a day when, quote, all kings shall fall before him, end of quote. And this means many people shall go and say, let us go up to the mountain of the house of the Lord, and he will teach us his ways, and he will judge among the nations, in Isaiah 2, verses 3 and 4. Now that's in the last days before the second coming. The implication is that nations will covenant to rule by God's law, and will then unite in covenant. This will provide judgment among nations, and common defense from attack by rebellious nations. As nations are discipled, in accordance with Matthew 28, 19, and 20, the world would be united under Christ, the King of kings, ruling through his people, quote, the saints of the highest one will receive the kingdom, according to Daniel 7, 18 and 7, 13. So a key question is, does the authority of monarchy come from God directly, or only from some other minister of God? Now Dante says that the authority of monarchy does not derive from ecclesiastical sources. Those who rely on tradition in this matter, he dispatches with Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees for elevating their tradition above the word of God. However, to demonstrate that the authority of monarchy comes from God directly, Dante turns not to revelation, but to philosophy. He concludes that since revelation concerns spiritual matters only, secular power is granted directly from God. Now this is true, but it's derived by illegitimate means. It is the scriptures themselves that demarcate between the institutions of church and state, establishing the office of priest distinct from that of magistrate. So does this mean that a monarch is answerable to God alone in the exercise of his authority, or may he be checked by some other earthly authority? Well, authority was divided in the Hebrew Republic to guard against a dangerous accumulation of unjust power in the hands of one or a few, to ensure that only those ordained by God may lead the nation in worship. The situation in 1 Samuel 14.45 is an example of the people in their collective legislative capacity, like a house of commons or representatives, checking an unjust decision of the rebellious king Saul. They prevented him from foolishly putting his own son, Jonathan, to death after a glorious military victory. Power was divided horizontally and vertically in ancient Israel. Under God's direction, Moses established a council of 70 elders to assist in bearing the burden of government, which was a horizontal division of power. And this was operative in the New Testament, where, quote, the high priest and his associates had come, they called the council together, even on the senate of the sons of Israel, in Acts 5.21, to pass judgment on the disciples. And in the Exodus 18 incident, God established a network of graded courts below Moses, a vertical division of power. So another question, was the Roman Empire justified in waging war to establish peace, which they called Pax Romana? Well, according to Dante, the world never experienced such an era of peace as under Augustus. And that, then, the human race was happy in the tranquility of universal peace. This is the same empire that Daniel described as exceedingly dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, nails of brass, which devoured, break in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet, Daniel 7.19. Under biblical law, Rome was justified in waging war only to the extent necessary to defend her borders from pirates in the Adriatic Sea. This, of course, was not the intent of Roman conquerors such as Julius Caesar, whose reputation was erected on the subjugation of Gaul, or modern France, and indeed the entire world. Plutarch told how Julius stood before a statue of Alexander the Great and lamented the fact that while Alexander, by the age of 30, had conquered the world, he himself had done no such thing. And yet, Augustus Caesar was wise enough to mask his tyranny under the illusion of Pax Romana until the populace got used to a permanent dictator. And so, in the fullness of time, God sent forth his son. This is the Pax Romana that Dante yearned for. Well, is unity the necessary prerequisite for good, according to Dante? The greatest sinners in Dante's hell are those who have disrupted political unity, for example Judas and Brutus, who led the assassination of Julius Caesar. Unity is the passion of every tyrant. Dante confuses political unity with the voluntary unity of spirit when Christian brothers dwell together in peace, according to Psalm 133, and he concludes that political unity is the necessary prerequisite for good, which is a non-sequitur. It does not follow. Dante resolves the philosophical problem of the one and the many in favor of the one. He offers as a premise that two rulers equal in power will be forever at war because there is not a third or greater power to judge them. But his assumption that the third ruler will always possess a spirit of justice and equanimity is equally fallacious. It is only in the doctrine of the Trinity, the equal ultimacy of the one and the many, that the problem may be resolved. Mutual submission of a multiplicity of authorities to the law of God and to each other is the key to peace rather than empire. Christian conservatives are fond of referring to the U.S. constitutional government as that of limited delegated powers. But in the ratification debates, the strongest Christians, usually the anti-federalists, like Patrick Henry, strongly challenged that claim. We want an empire, he said. Any government that neglects the authority of God will inevitably devolve into an empire. With some 850 overseas military bases, we are an empire. Patrick Henry said, here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. He warned, it is radical in this transition. Our rights and privileges are endangered and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished and we plainly see that this is actually the case. But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. So we've got to replace the phrase getting back to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution with getting back to the original intent of the law of God for four reasons, at least four reasons. One, the founding fathers were not using the Bible as their great political textbook because in Federalist 10, Madison said Christianity was the primary cause of faction in a nation. And then number two, there's no discussion of biblical principles of government in the convention notes. And number three, there's no mention of God in the Constitution. The preamble is a textbook social contract and article six has no higher law above the Constitution itself. And then number four, the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty, about a year prior to the Constitutional Convention, Madison and Jefferson said that a man's opinions about religion have no more to do with qualifications for office than his opinions about geometry and any other science. So only a great Bible reset will appease the wrath of God and make man truly happy. As the prophet Daniel tells us in the era following the ascension of Christ to the Ancient of Days, he said, then the sovereignty, the dominion, the greatness of all the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be given to the people of the saints of the highest one. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom and all the dominions will serve and obey him, according to Daniel 27. And thus the dominion rule of Christ in Daniel 7, 14 is fulfilled in the rule of the saints, just as we read in Ephesians 2, 6, where it says, Paul says, he has raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places. But we're so jaded now today by the illusion of pluralism, we can barely imagine, much less tolerate the idea of a true Christian republic governed by the book of the covenant. So for more detail on this, pick up Discipling the Nations at kingswayclassicalacademy.com bookstore. And please check out our store, boomers-alive.com, which supports the school. And remember, well thank you for being here today, but remember tomorrow is interview day and you won't want to miss that. Same time, same place.