Presupposition Three:
If life is antithetical, then
1) there is a singular, rudimentary dichotomy regarding cosmological purpose that exposits a unique perspective in terms of the personal identity of the created order in relation to its position before the Creator, and
2) it is a dichotomy which He has approved as well as a first principle upon which all reality rests.
This idea will be continuously referred to as the true dichotomy, a concept I believe to hold explanatory power concerning the cosmos (i.e., all things which He has ordered) in a way that it establishes a placeholder for the unexplainable, akin to what Oxford mathematician and Christian apologist, John Lennox says for ideas concerning the Holy Trinity, gravity, energy, etc. For what are explanatorily powerful terms other than words with immense value to assuage a finite mind’s capacity for subject matter with complexity beyond our comprehension.
Begging the Question
Of course, the existence of a true dichotomy, which is up for debate, is listed as a principal presupposition, because there is an assumption ingrained within the term that begs the question, "why must there only be one true division mutually exclusive of all others?"
The answer is because the Creator with infinite creative capacity, as the originator, has plenary power over all He has ordered, and He has said it is so. Then why should we accept His order of all things as well as His explanation concerning the cosmological order as being good? Because while such power would corrupt absolutely the hands of a man, as Lord Acton truthfully proclaims, in the hands of perfection it is the power of a Deity worthy of nothing less than worship and adoration. As explained in presupposition two, He is the source of all things unifying, good, beautiful, and true. Additionally, being omniscient means no idea remained unthought or unconsidered in the order of all things. Thus, His very nature and character makes it so that He ordered all things in the best manner in consideration of all four of His transcendental characteristics and perfect knowledge for the singular purpose that we may glorify His sovereign supremacy in all these things.
But What of Vainglory?
Immediately in encountering such supremacy, our finite minds will attempt to breathe jealously over His sovereignty desiring His unifying purpose, goodness, beauty and truth for personal, self-esteeming glorification. Furthermore, in secular circles, such power is often deemed dangerous. Specifically, Western society has absolutized the definition of holding absolute power to be nothing less than a dictatorship, and in doing so, has created a pejorative which conveys an idea that this power should be for no one if it cannot be for ourselves. Thus, mankind stands in complete opposition to an omnipotent God Who had been accused by the late atheist Christopher Hitchens as being a celestial dictator. Yet, the aforementioned dictatorship is not of the Marxist variety carried into effect by Lenin, Stalin, or Mao Tse-tung nor is it any other malevolent kind envisaged by others. Foremost, it is the kind of creative order dictated by a God Who perfectly possesses at least the immutable characteristics of the second presupposition. Even still, regardless of personal feelings, what ability do we have to manipulate the creative order? Can one choose their birth parents? What about the day one will naturally die? How much quantifiable control do we have over our natural life and death in comparison with amending the form and function of a universe created by Him? The answer is zero control.
Therefore, presupposition three stands for the premise that God gets to dictate the one, true dichotomy of the cosmos that He created. Presuming you cannot go outside the boundaries of this space and time to create your own cosmos, and thereby, avoid His “dictatorship,” would it not make the most sense to make peace with He Whom has created and owns all things? This presupposition is a pivotal battle coined in modern parlance by the post-Christian counterculture in sentimental terms like anti-slavery and anti-dictatorship. An American history rooted in the right to declare one’s independence from any sovereign continues to deeply instruct and indoctrinate youthful minds with seeds of discontentment over personal lack of control regarding socio-economic station. Of course, I in no way adhere to a pro-slavery or pro-dictatorship position ordered by the demos but merely desire to point out the inherent contradiction in declaring a right to autonomous independence through the singular, general observation that every “individual” on this planet is integrated into a system that has been intricately interwoven with interdependency. Indeed, as Rene Rousseau quipped a half truth, “[m]an is . . . everywhere in chains,” for we are all in some way chained to another.
In other words, not only are we in some way dependent upon another for our existence, but we are ultimately dependent upon this one God in Whom we “live and move and have our being.” In that respect, we have no choice but to accept His order, because the created thing is inferior to God; as such, the designed cannot influence its design or the Designer beyond its determined limitations. Like clay, which cannot control the default form it is given by its potter, man simply holds no leverage over the Designer. With no enforcement mechanism to leverage our desires or demands against this Creator in need of nothing Who is captive to no one, man is innately inferior and must accept His order of all things, regardless of the designs others or the Designer may have on His creation.
Acceptance and Love for His Will
This is a truth spoken with no attempt to germinate seeds of self-pity or discontentment in the reader, but rather the purpose is to reflect on personal perspective concerning our inferiority: ought we to view ourselves as a man in chains or someone that is His treasured possession? Should we focus our attention on ridding ourselves of all restraint or is it better to see ourselves as bound to the omniscient One with designs on building our character? Do we possess a "graceless neck to which the yoke of Christ is intolerable" or do we love His yoke? Do we prefer to elevate ourselves above God or to be in submission at His feet under the authority, majesty, sovereignty, and power He possesses?
This is a type of wisdom that at times plainly calls out to us from the public square, and yet, it is often drowned out in the deep sea of overly introspective conscientiousness. Such wisdom is also overtly pressed down and assiduously counterbalanced by the cacophony of oppositional dichomatic worldviews introduced with successive rapidity, each designed to further confound the hearer. The human mind is weak and without assistance it remains lost in a network of disinformation, for who can truly know the heart of man. In this light, a declaration of independence is utter foolishness. On the other hand, seeking counsel and a discerned dependence on others is wisdom. In other words, there is only way out of the colossal labyrinth, and He is Christ the Lord. If you forsake Him, He will forsake you, and you will remain lost. However, the Lord is with you while you are with Him. If you seek Him, he will be found by you.
The Tale of Two Cities
So then, what is the wisdom of the true dichotomy of which I am speaking? It is simply what has been stated in the first presupposition, but there are several ways to describe it. It is best adumbrated under the Greek term polis which signifies the city often circumscribed by walls belonging to a corporation of common citizenry. As such, when speaking of the true dichotomy, I simply mean one is either a citizen in the city of God, or a citizen in the city of anti-God. A real game of thrones is built around this understanding, and a winter is coming, one in which many will find themselves saying, “the harvest is past, the summer has ended, and we are not saved."
The option is to either view reality as described within the true dichotomy, or to get lost in the world via distracting ones that only serve as a means to take your eyes off the real battlefield. How does this look in practice? We could begin speaking the truth regarding a battle between God and Satan as has been described.
Most specifically, the first cosmos conflict took place between Creator and created, and every subsequent conflict has been about a fault line drawn between the two. This is the true dichotomy in summation. The cosmos conflict began as a territorial dispute over Who reigned and had rights to the cultivation of all contained within the cosmos. In short, this was a culture war about how God ordered the universe. Unelect angels preferred Satan’s domination in the cosmos over God’s. Satan, a creature disturbed by the establishment desired to redesign the cosmos by a coup d’etat and to sit as head of state over all creatures and his Creator. Not only was this a culture war, but the conflict was over natural hierarchy derived by vexation over personal value (i.e., axios) and discontentment over asymmetry resulting in Satan and a third of the heavenly host being cast down from a previously appointed celestial station. In other words, there was an unwillingness of unelect angels encumbered with pride to accept God's absolute sovereignty over the cosmos.
The second cosmos conflict was similarly borne out of seeds of discontentment spread by the usurper resulting in an impious war between the Creator and our first parents, Adam and Eve. After the fall, the new fault lines drawn were between God and His elect against the unelect god, unelect angels, and unelect mankind. This is the true dichotomy in summation.
Hide it Under a Bushel?
Alternatively, one could start drawing lines in ways that are meaningless to the general schema of this universal thought. Thus, there are issues of first importance that we have received that God expects us to deliver unto others. What you deliver and your willingness to deliver will determine which side you stand. This is called lordship salvation, according to John MacArthur, and faith apart from a yield to His authority is dead.
The idea of standing in a particular position is intentionally meant to convey with it a connotation that, like a light switch, only one position brings forth light while the other darkness. If you have been granted the Holy Spirit, then you have the gift of discernment in terms of perceiving there will be first, second, and third order causes and effects over each decision made. This becomes particularly important as we begin to realize there is personal accountability in a coming judgment and that we will be held individually responsible for the outcome of our deeds, thoughts, words, and motives as well as even how we triaged our decisions and ordered our decision-making process attempting to choose between good and better. With such awareness, does this mean one’s light can stay in the on position at all times? If God wills it so, but only Christ was capable of carrying out the Father’s will perfectly. Still, in times that we have opportunity to shine forth, we ought not to let our light shine under a bushel; the battle is real, and he has delivered unto us as stewards first principles about the coming Kingdom. See I Corinthians 15:3-4.
Implications of the True Dichotomy
We are then responsible to avoid the pitfalls of speaking empty, unfruitful words about false dichotomies. Devoid of Christ and the coming kingdom, discussions like that of the patriot, and the non-patriot, or the Democrat and Republican, conflicts between conservatives, liberals, Whigs, and Tories, or even discrimination concerns over white and black, male and female, and wealthy and poor (a list of oppressive socio-economic ideological class structures which goes on ad infinitum) only serve to distract the human mind from the true battle bifurcated across two parties: God and Satan.
Do some of these false dichotomic issues matter? Yes, but they are part and parcel to the larger schema in a fallen world ultimately subject to the supremacy of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords Who is of foremost importance in our discussions about the divisive issues concerning this world. Such discussions should be our goal as often as is possible. For all that are His have only one opportunity to discuss this truth on this side of eternity and to glorify Him in ways that we will never be able to do again.