Well here I find myself reminding myself of the maxim that “there is no such thing as bad publicity,” which is a good thing because bad publicity seems to be the majority report when it comes to reporting on me or matters concerning me.
Most recently, Dr. R. Scott Clark (RSC) wrote part I of what one can only presume is at least a two part (and maybe more) blog posts series on Kinism. In this post by RSC I am referenced more than once, though RSC demonstrates the ability to do so without actually mentioning my name. I have reached, it seems, the status wit Scott of “he whom shall not be named.”
I provide the link hesitantly because I hate to think of providing RSC any traffic, but because my quoting of him will seem so fantastic as to not possibly be true, I want to give those following along the ability to read for themselves what I am citing RSC as writing.
Now, we should note at the outset that this post by RSC is a backhanded attempt to smear me so as to discredit my recently published book that demolishes Scott’s cherished Radical Two Kingdom “Theology.” IMO, Scott goes this route because he cannot deal with or overturn the actual arguments found in my “Saved to be Warriors; Exposing the Errors of Radical Two-Kingdom Theology.”
As anybody who has a pulse now knows, R2K is bleeding out fast. The substance of it is being slammed in so many quarters that it is taking more hits then the World Wide Wrestling Entertainment Federation’s “The Big Red Machine Kane,” who has lost more wrestling matches than anybody in WWEF history.
Most recently RSC tried to sell the idea that an overture sent to the PCA asking the Denomination to petition the FEDS and State governments;
“to renounce the sin of all medical and surgical sex change procedures in minors by the American healthcare system because they result in irreversible harm.”
Was out of order and not proper per RSC’s unique reading of the Westminster Confession of Faith. However, Scott seemingly thinking nobody was watching, got a smackdown of epic proportions. I don’t care for Scott and even I hurt for him watching this smackdown;
Today @RScottClark authored a post regarding an upcoming overture to the #PCAGA petitioning the government to renounce sins related to transgenderism. That article can be found here. 1/12 https://t.co/ARNYW3cxVT
— Once for All Delivered (@OFADpodcast) March 31, 2023
In reading through the above it becomes apparent, once again, that Scott plays fast and loose with any text he reads if he thinks he can manipulate the text to his ends. It is very postmodern of him to handle texts the way he does. That inability becomes a theme also in his latest diatribe against myself and Kinism which we turn to next.
Well, enough by way of introduction let us get to the meat of RSC’s libel against myself and Kinism.
First, Scott provides us with some definitions:
- Theonomy holds that the civil magistrate should enforce the Mosaic judicial laws, that they did not expire with the Israelite state.
- Christian Reconstructionism expects a coming collapse of civilization and a new, Christian civilization to be reconstructed along theonomic lines.
- Postmillennialism looks forward to the conversion of all the nations and an earthly glory age of considerable length (one writer suggested 40,000 years) before the return of Christ.
#1 Above is not accurate because Theonomy holds that the civil magistrate should enforce the Mosaic judicial laws, in their general equity.
Please note dear reader that if this is not true in some manner then we have no solid basis for criminalizing bestiality. And indeed it has been, in the past, the very view of some who share RSC’s R2K convicition;“Not being a theonomist or theocrat, I do not believe it is the state’s role to enforce religion or Christian morality. So allowing something legally is not the same as endorsing it morally. I don’t want the state punishing people for practicing homosexuality. Other Christians disagree. Fine. That’s allowed. That is the distinction. Another example – beastiality (sic) is a grotesque sin and obviously if a professing member engages in it he is subject to church discipline. But as one who leans libertarian in my politics, I would see problems with the state trying to enforce it; not wanting the state involved at all in such personal practices; I’m content to let the Lord judge it when he returns. A fellow church member might advocate for beastiality (sic) laws. Neither would be in sin whatever the side of the debate. Now if the lines are blurry in these disctinctions,(sic) that is always true in pastoral ministry dealing with real people in real cases in this fallen world.”Rev. Todd Bordow
In short, the final word on Scott’s #1 above was written in 1996 by Martin Foulner and is titled “Theonomy and the Westminster Confession.” Foulner shows clearly in that book that many of the Westminster Divines if they were not Theonomists they were clearly something very close to what we call today Theonomy. To my knowledge 27 years later no one has answered Foulner’s book.
R2K PastorOn RSC’s #2 above, RSC makes it sound horrid that a social order would be governed by God’s law. What is wrong with a social order governed by God’s law? If not God’s law Scott then who’s law? Now as it regards the Scott’s complaint about the Reconstructionist idea of a coming collapse of civilization one can only wonder if RSC reads the newspaper.
Finally, in regards to RSC’s #3 we can take the time to list just a few of the Reformed luminaries throughout history who have owned the dreaded eschatology called “Postmillennialism.”
The greatest theologian in the first 1500 years of the Church (Augustine) was postmillennial;
In his book Prophecy and the Church Dr O.T. Allis gives this accurate outline of Augustine’s eschatology. “Augustine taught that the millennium is to be interpreted spiritually as fulfilled in the Christian church. He held that the binding of Satan took place during the earthly ministry of our Lord (Luke 10:18); that the first resurrection is the new birth of the believer (John 5:25); and that the millennium must correspond therefore to the interadventual period or Church Age” (pp. 3-4).
Augustine, taking Rev. 20:1-6 as a recapitulation of what preceded in the book of Revelation and living, as he did, in the first half of the first millennium, understandably enough, took the 1000 years of Rev. 20 literally and anticipated the Second Advent of Christ to take place at the end of that time-frame. He did not believe that Revelation 20:1-6 described a new age following sequentially from the events set forth in Revelation 19. Augustine believed this interadventual period might end about 650 A.D. with a great outburst of evil, the revolt of Gog, which would be followed by the coming of Christ in judgement.
In short, Augustine regarded the millennium as a present spiritual reign by Christ in the earth and that the Second Advent of Christ would be at the end of this period, that it would be Postmillennial. So, Augustine believed he was living in the postmillennial age.
Besides Augustine we can count the following as just a Whitman’s sampler of those who have been postmillennial of one stripe or another throughout history;
Thomas Goodwin
Richard Sibbes
John Howe
Samuel Rutherford
George Gillespie
David Dickson
Robert Leighton
John Browm of Wamphray
Jonathan Edwards
Thomas Chalmers
Three Hodges: Charles., A. A., and C. W
W. G. T. Shedd
R. L. Dabney
B. B. WarfieldIn summary then, RSC’s complaint against Postmillennialism is just him carping about his own Church history.
Hey, I thought that RSC made his stripes by being a Church Historian. Why am I having to tell him all this about Church history?
Not sure if it was R. Scott Clark makes the argument for natural rather than biblical law, but it strikes me that the book of Jonah creates problems.
Where not the Ninevites already following natural law? Why what did they have to repent for if not for transgressions against biblical law?