“Though the partisans of arbitrary power will freely censure that preacher who speaks boldly for the liberties of the people, they will admire as an excellent divine, the parson who teaches that the magistrates have a divine right for doing wrong, and are to be implicitly obeyed; men professing Christianity, as if the religion of the blessed Jesus bound them to bow their neck to any tyrant.”
Rev. William Gordon (1794)
Over at the Hideblog Dr. R. Scott Clark is holding court on the Wuhan narrative, Church’s defying State mandates that churches closes, and masks in general. I don’t have time to laugh at Clark over everything he says but I thought I would lift some of these quotes for your daily comic pleasure.
“God’s Word alone (sola scriptura) is the unique and final authority for the church’s theology, piety, and practice. The Lordship of Christ over his church, however, does not free the church as an institution from obligations common to human society. GCC seems to be unaware of Calvin’s distinction of a “twofold kingdom” (duplex regimen). We submit to Christ’s saving Lordship in the church and his general dominion in the shared, common realm of public life. Those things intersect whenever the church gathers visibly.”
R. Scott Clark
1.) This whole point presupposes Clark’s R2K. If one laughs at R2K then one will laugh at this point of Christ’s “general dominion.” Clark’s point here is that Christ’s Lordship over the common realm of public life is not specific but is mediated via Natural law to all peoples. If one doesn’t agree with R2K one isn’t going to agree with the way Clark sets this whole piece up. (And one shouldn’t since R2K is heterodox.)
2) If Clark believed that in the common realm Christ’s Lordship is specific then we could appeal to Clark that Grace Community Church did not err in defying the California state orders not to gather since God’s law teaches that we are not to bear False Witness and that no Magistrate can forbid the Church from gathering because of this fake Wuhan narrative and neither can the State force Christians to wear masks because such mask wearing is a false witness. Therefore because we cannot bear false witness we must defy the States order not to gather and gather not wearing masks. We must obey God rather than man.
To give in to this Wuhan narrative and not gather for worship and to wear a mask is to violate the 9th commandment which was articulated again recently,
“Those young and healthy people who currently walk around with a mask on their faces would be better off wearing a helmet instead, because the risk of something falling on their head is greater than that of getting a serious case of Covid-19.”
Dr. Beda M Stadler — MD
Here is another gem from Dr. R. Scott Clark,
“For the sake of discussion, let us say that the ordinary masks worn by most Americans (as distinct from the N95 masks, personally fitted and worn by trained medical professionals) are utterly ineffective agains the spread of Coronavirus and are nothing but a salve, a sop to make worried Americans feel better. In other words, let us say that, like the strong Christians in Corinth, the anti-maskers are right on the substance of the issue, that like the pagan gods, a mask is nothing.In light of that truth, should the anti-maskers say to their worried brothers and sisters in the congregation, who perhaps have friends, relatives, or co-workers who have died from Covid, or who have vulnerable people in their house: “Man up! Stop being such a sissy! Masks are utterly ineffective. Trust God. Get over your unreasoning fear!”? Granted the analogy between masks and the gods and between maskers and the weaker brothers in Corinth, we know what the answer is. No.”
Dr. R. Scott Clark
Seminary Smart Guy teaching future Pastors
1.) The masks are not mandated to make worried Americans feel better. The masks are mandated to make Americans fearful. However, even if they were to make worried American’s feel better the question would have to be, “Better about what?” Better about being conned by the lying State officials? Better about being stampeded into tyranny? Better about being sheep being led to the Revolutionary slaughter? Better about showing their allegiance to the God State?
2.) But the masks aren’t nothing as Dr. Clark says. You can see them there on the faces. The masks, unlike the pagan God’s are corporeal. They are having an impact. They are a control mechanism. Would St. Paul have wanted the pagan gods to have social control over the Christians Scott?
3.) The masks aren’t nothing. They are a positive health impediment to the weak and strong Christians. Masks lead to health problems. Wearing the mask thus is a violation of the 6th commandment. R. Scott Clark is advocating our violating both the 6th and 9th commandments.
4.) In light of the three above truths that refute Clark’s flimsy analogy argument, should the pro-maskers be allowed to continue in living by lies and so violating the 9th commandment? Should the anti-maskers be allowed to think that the masks are really protecting them when in point of fact they are not protecting them from a virus that masks can’t stop? Shall we go on masking that lies may abound? God forbid? Should the anti-maskers say to the pro-maskers: “Go on, continue to be deceived. Continue to endanger your health by wearing masks. Continue to bear false witness. Continue to live by lies. God finds it pleasing when His people violate the 6th and 9th commandments?”
“We take it for granted that food is secular, i.e., that it is not religious or it has not ordinarily been put to a religious use (with the exception of Kosher and Hallal food) before we buy it. Things were not quite that way in the Greco-Roman world. Paganism was the state-religion and it was pervasive. The pagans had claimed every square inch for the gods and they dedicated the food to them.”
Dr. R. Scott Clark
Seminary Smart Guy Teaching Future Pastors
1.) So, I take it from Clark’s smart-arse use of the Abraham Kuyper quote, “the pagans had claimed every square inch for the gods and they dedicated the food to them,” that Christians are not supposed to pray over their food at meal time, thus dedicating their eating to God, since, after all, food is secular?
2.) Am I to infer that when St. Paul says,
So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God. R. Scott Clark thinks St. Paul in error? I Corinthians 10:31
I mean if food is secular how can I eat something inherently secular to the glory of God?
3.) Of course Clark is wrong about food being “secular.” If food were really secular Christians would eat live animals like the Chinese do. Neither would we shrink from eating companion animals, or for that matter, dead humans. Unless food were religious cannibalism would be just fine.
4.) Clark says that food has not normally been put to religious use. I wonder if Scott would say Bread and Wine as upon the Lord’s Table are also secular food and drink?
Rather, it (Scott’s post) is a plea for Christians on both sides to stop trying to use the visible church as a lever in the culture war. The visible church, the institutional church, is not a soldier in the culture war for the right or the left.
Dr. R. Scott Clark
Seminary Smart Guy Teaching Future Pastors
So, when Jesus says “Whoever does not gather with me, scatters,” and “You cannot serve two masters,” He had in mind exempting the Church from speaking out on the State forcing its citizenry to violate the 6th and 9th commandment?
And keep in mind that Scott himself is guilty of using the visible church as a lever in the culture war. Clark himself is using the visible church, the institutional church, as a soldier in the culture war for the left. That this is so is seen in Scott’s insistence that the Church follow the left and mask up. Masking up is part of the leftist agenda and here is Scott using the visible church as a lever to advance the left’s Marxist agenda.
You can’t make this kind of myopia up.