Over at the “HIDEOUSBLOG” Dr. R. Scott Clark demonstrates (yet again) that he is stupid. If you search engine “R. Scott Clark Hideousblog” you will find the site. The column title is; “Stemming Another Rising Tide Of Theonomy: Hebrews 7:11–14 (1): Background.” I am not going to link it here because the thought of Iron Ink giving HideousBlog traffic makes me ill.
Herein follows the list of Clark’s errors;
1.) “no Republican was going to win the White House that year” (1976 election).
I only include this rather off hand comment by Clark in order to demonstrate that the man doesn’t know what he is talking about. If Clark can be wrong here, in such an obvious manner, then it gives support to the idea that Clark doesn’t know what he is talking about in any number of any other “factual” accounts he gives.
Briefly put, Republican chances in 1976 were good. Ford ended up losing in the closest Presidential race of the 20th century at that time, save one. Many experts believe that if Reagan had received the nomination that Republicans would have indeed won. Failing that if Ford would have just run more to the right he might have pulled out Ohio and won. Clark is just in gross error here, as he continues to be throughout this piece. For Pete’s sake Ford won 27 states, the most states ever carried by a losing candidate.
2.) “Still, Bahnsen’s book, which advocated the (future) reimposition of the Mosaic judicial laws, went off like a bombshell, provoking reviews and responses in Christianity Today and a volume of essays by the faculty of Westminster Seminary.”
Throughout the history of Westminster Seminary the faculty had never, to that time, put out of a volume of essays denouncing anything. Never a joint volume denouncing Dispensationalism. Never a joint volume denouncing the sexual revolution. Never a joint volume denouncing liberalism in the Church. Only upon Greg Bahnsen’s publication advocating respecting God’s Law did the Westminster faculty determine that they had to put out a joint volume of essays in order to squash Bahnsen. That volume of essays has since been torn from limb to limb and scattered to the wind as it has been exposed as to how shallow and errant it is.
While we are on it, a good booklet to get that overturns Westminster’s and Clark’s silly hostility to Bahnsen’s theonomy is “Theonomy and the Westminster Confession” by Martin Foulner.
3.) “His (Bahnsen’s) argument was shocking to the consciences of many American evangelical Christians for a variety of reasons. First, many American evangelicals had been reared in Dispensational fundamentalism. As strict as they might have been in their piety and personal morality, theologically and practically they were antinomian. The Old Testament was thought generally to belong to previous “dispensations” in history and thus not even the Ten Commandments were thought to be “for today,” let alone the Mosaic judicial laws.”
Yeah, antinomian Dispensationalism was and is kind of like Clark’s antinomian R2K buddy, David Van Drunen writing,
“Scripture is the sacred text given to God’s covenant people whom he has redeemed from sin. . . . Given its character, therefore, Scripture is not given as a common moral standard that provides ethical imperatives to all people regardless of their religious standing.”
DAVID VAN DRUNEN
Even antinomian R. Scott Clark reveals his antinomian slip by writing;