Category: Apologetics

J. Gresham Machen and Christendom … Contra R2K’s Despising Of Christendom

It is a popular ploy of R2K types to insist that Christendom is no more, or that Christendom was a bad idea, or that we need to rid ourselves of the ideas of Christendom. Indeed, just recently at a R2K blog site one R2K advocate named “Sean” said, “State of Christendom? Christendom died a long time ago. “

This anti-Christendom mindset is unique to R2K. In point of fact it is one of the many innovative aspects that one finds in the Radical Two Kingdom Theology. Unlike almost all of Christendom that went before them they earnestly believe that Christendom is a myth. I find it curious for them to complain about something that to their mind could never have possibly existed. It would be like me complaining of a Grumpolumpagus. R2K advocates will often complain of the sins of Christendom but how can something that doesn’t exist have sins. If it is not possible for Christendom to exist then it never existed even when people thought it existed and any sins that might have existed certainly can’t be laid at the feet of a thing that never existed.

J. Greshma Machen of course did not agree with this despising of Christendom. In his sermon, The Creeds And Doctrinal Advance Machen could and did speak respectfully of Christendom.

“So they sit down and concoct various forms of words, which they represent as being on a plane with the great creed of Christendom. When they do that, they are simply forgetting what the creeds of Christendom are. The creeds of Christendom are not expressions of Christian experience. They are summary statements of what God has told us in His Word.”

R2K folks could never speak like Machen does here with his tend referencing of “Christendom.” Machen likely wasn’t even self conscious that he chose the word. It was natural for him, as it has been natural to the history of Reformational thought to refer to Christendom. R2K advocates self censor when it comes to the notion of Christendom.

Here we see again that Dr. Machen was no harbinger of R2K.

The Worldview Machen On The Modern Age — A Rebuff To Hart’s R2K Machen

“The truth is there can be no real progress unless there is something that is fixed. Archimedes said, “Give me a place to stand, and I will move the world.” Well, Christian doctrine provides that place to stand. Unless there be such a place to stand, all progress is an illusion. The very idea of progress implies something fixed. There is no progress in a kaleidoscope

That is the trouble with the boasted progress of our modern age. The Bible at the start was given up. Nothing was to be regarded as fixed. All truth was regarded as relative. What has been the result? I will tell you. An unparalleled decadence—liberty prostrate, slavery stalking almost unchecked through the earth, the achievements of centuries crumbling in the dust, sweetness and decency despised, all meaning regarded as having been taken away from human life. What is the remedy? I will tell you that too. A return to God’s Word! We had science for the sake of science, and got the World War; we had art for art’s sake, and got ugliness gone mad; we had man for the sake of man and got a world of robots—men made into machines. Is it not time for us to come to ourselves, like the prodigal in a far country? Is it not time for us to seek real progress by a return to the living God?

J. Gresham Machen
The Creeds and Doctrinal Advance

1.) Notice how integrated Machen’s worldview here is in this excerpt. He starts with the necessity of the absolute given-ness of the Scriptures and the Historic Christian Doctrine that they convey. From there he segues into the reality that without the Archimedian fixed reference point there can be no progress. And the progress which Machen is referring to is not merely progress in the Church but progress in culture and social order. Machen explicitly says because of the loss of fixity that is provided with and by Scripture and the Christian doctrine that flows from it, “there is decadence, there is liberty prostrate, there is slavery stalking almost unchecked upon the earth, the achievements of centuries crumbling in the dust, with sweetness and decency despised.”

    Now clearly this is worldview thinking at its best.

Machen, writing as a Christian Minister, and a Doctor of the Church, tells the Christian community that unless they return to Scripture not only will all hope of progress is abandoned but also regress into old chaos and dark night is guaranteed.

2.) Notice also, how Machen connects the teaching of Scripture to what some style the “common realm.” Machen, like all good worldview thinkers, explicitly notes that when we embraced Science apart from Christian doctrine, Art apart from Christian doctrine, Man apart from Christian doctrine the consequences were war, ugliness gone mad, and robots. Machen clearly sees a connection here between Scripture, Christian Doctrine and all of life. Machen’s faith is not a privatized faith that is cordoned off from the public square. Machen’s faith is not a faith that appeals to Natural Law to govern science, art, and man. Machen’s faith is not a faith that would keep him from boldly speaking as a Christian minister to the life issues of the time. Machen’s faith was a wholistic integrated faith as this quote clearly reveals.

3.) In his appeal to return to the living God is implied the idea that should man return to the living God then the problems he makes mention off will find themselves receding. Man will no longer be a robot and a machine but instead will discover again his manishness. Art will no longer be ugliness gone mad but will once again find its proper place and role in God’s world. Science will no longer be prone to producing War but will be harnessed for the glory of God.

Machen finds in God’s Word and Christian doctrine not only the resolution to individual men’s hostility to God and God’s hostility to them, but Machen also found in God’s Word and Christian doctrine the resolution to a world gone mad and a civilization undone by sin.

And for that R2K must re-invent the Machen of History so that he is, as one R2K advocate recently put it one who believed that, “fighting these (cultural) battles was not the ministry of the visible church.” Quite to the contrary this piece reveals a man of the visible Church fighting with an eye not only to the Church but also to the cultural issues in the world.

Curious Words From The New Pope

The blurb opens up with,

In comments likely to enhance his progressive reputation, Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.

Bret responds,

I’m sure the atheist Richard Dawkins is glad to hear this latest statement by Pope Francis, because now he can be forgiven as he follows his conscience in supporting pedophilia. Dawkins recently said,

Referring to his early days at a boarding school in Salisbury, the renown atheist recalled how one of the (unnamed) masters

    “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts.”

Dawkins said other children in his school peer group had been molested by the same teacher but concluded:

    “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.”

    “I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,”

Dawkins said.

Dawkins went on to say the most notorious cases of pedophilia involve rape and even murder and should not be bracketed with what he called

    “just mild touching up.”

So now, given Pope Francis’ insight, Richard Dawkins can be forgiven when he, and other unbeliever’s like him follow their conscience in “just mildly touching up” little children. Pedophilia never held so much promise.

Pope Francis weighs in

Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.”

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.”

Bret responds while scratching his head,

Why would the one who does not believe in God go to a God they don’t believe in, with a sincere and contrite heart? The one we are talking about DOESN’T BELIEVE IN GOD.

The article continues,

Robert Mickens, the Vatican correspondent for the Catholic journal The Tablet, said the pontiff’s comments were further evidence of his attempts to shake off the Catholic Church’s fusty image, reinforced by his extremely conservative predecessor Benedict XVI. “Francis is a still a conservative,” said Mr Mickens. “But what this is all about is him seeking to have a more meaningful dialogue with the world.”

Bret responds,

Translated — “In an attempt to convert the world, the world has converted the Papacy and the ‘Church’.”

The article finishes,

In a welcoming response to the letter, Mr Scalfari said the Pope’s comments were “further evidence of his ability and desire to overcome barriers in dialogue with all”.

In July, Francis signaled a more progressive attitude on sexuality, asking: “If someone is gay and is looking for the Lord, who am I to judge him?”

In fairness to Francis, it was said that when Francis said this he was referring to celibate sodomites. Though, after this piece, I’m having my doubts about that Vatican post comment spin.

Putin’s New York Times Editorial Piece

There has been a great deal of buzz about Vladimir Putin’s editorial in the New York Times today. I don’t consider the Times to be a reputable Newspaper but I thought I would make a few observations about the Putin editorial. The editorial can be found here,

Keep in mind that my distrust of Putin in no way implies trust for Obama, Democrats, or Republicans. I can manage to be against them all at the same time, hoping that they conspire to pull each other houses down so that a non Tyrannical house can be built.

1.) Putin offered, “But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together.”

When Putin uses the word “we” here in the context of being allies during WW II, it strikes me that he is identifying himself with the former Communist Bolshevik Tyranny that held the reigns of power during WW II in Communist Russia. For this reason alone I find Putin to be a character that is not to be trusted. Anybody who self identifies with the Communists is someone whom Christians should be skeptical.

Secondly, on this score, it is true that the Nazis were defeated, which was good news, however, the price we paid in turning over much of the globe to international Communism (the “WE” that Putin self identifies with) made the defeat of the Nazis an empty victory.

2.) Putin extols the United Nations in his piece. This is another indicator that the man is not to be trusted. The United Nations has always been the residence of the progressive Marxist left, and was established in order to assist the bringing to fruition the long held dream of the New World Order. Putin further says on this score that nobody desires to see the UN fail. That is not true. I suspect that millions of people pray daily that the UN will fail.

3.) Keep in mind as you read anything coming from Putin that a defector from the KGB, (Anatoliy Golitsyn) told us long ago that the Soviets will fake the death of the USSR. His predictions were spot on. Do we really think that one day a huge super power like the USSR just falls apart without a whimper? No trials or anything for the former rulers? All the party faithful oligarchs are transformed from communists into “entrepreneurs” overnight? The former rulers become the new rulers, nothing really changes in the power structure? The purpose of this long con is to advance the agenda of the New World Order. Putin, being former KGB, is part of this deception and the end goal remains the Communization of the globe. Meet the new boss … same as the old boss.

We have to keep in mind that the cold war was useful to accomplish big things for the New World Order but the International elites needed a new era. Remember our state dept and Wall-street gave the world the USSR, Red China, Cuba, and so on. The best enemy money could buy. Putin, in my estimation is playing his role in the long con to enslave the world.

This long con was hinted at by Gorbachev in 1987 in an address to the Soviet Politburo,

“In October 1917, we parted with the old world, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road!? He further reassures his Communist colleagues: Comrades, do not be concerned about all that you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal change within the Soviet Union other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.”

There is no reason to believe that the long con does not continue.

4.) Putin in his speech appeals to the same old tired egalitarianism that has always been part and parcel of Communist ideology. In appealing to this egalitarianism Putin reveals, for those with eyes to see, the fact that Putin remains Red.

5.) So what game is Putin and Obama playing in this dramatic song and dance routine that is Syria? (Note — I believe most of what happens before the Cameras as well as what is reported in the press is Kabuki theater meant to fool the useful idiots) I believe that this was never about Syria. It was about weakening the prestige of America in the site of the World while discouraging Americans. This discouragement is part of the psychological warfare that KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov warned about almost 30 years ago. Obama has always been about destroying this country. Putin helped him in his goal as together they operated to bring down our prestige around the world while at the same time dispiriting Americans in regards to their country.

6.) Finally, Putin notes in this article that America should not think of itself as an exceptional country. This is consistent with what Obama has said in the past. In 2010, when Obama was asked if he believed in American exceptionalism, President Obama responded, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” If everyone is exceptional per Obama, then no one is exceptional per Putin. They are reading off the same script.

Those who dine with Putin, would be well advised to dine with a long spoon. I do not think he is the anti-Obama hope that some people think he is.

I’d like to be wrong. I don’t think I am.

R2K’s Inherent Pessimism

“Christians have always lived in pessimistic times. That’s the nature of being aliens and exiles. That’s what happens when you worship in the church militant. Sure, Christians are optimistic about going home to be with their Lord. But they’re not optimistic about making their home here, this side of glory….

… 2kers, in fact, know that we are always in a battle and that culture wars often distract from the real warfare which is spiritual and that can only seen by faith and not by sight.”

Darryl G. Hart
R2K Connoisseur
https://oldlife.org/2013/09/06/making-difference-even-bill-evans-cant-see/

1.) I for one am glad that not all Christians have agreed with Dr. Hart on this matter when he says that Christians have always lived (and, by way of implication, “always will live”) in pessimistic times. For example, Dr. J. Gresham Machen did not agree with Darryl on this score. Machen could look forward to times that would be absent of pessimism,

“God still rules, and in the midst of darkness there will come in His good time the shining of a clearer light. There will come a great revival of the Christian religion; and with it will come, we believe a revival of true learning…”

2.) Note that it is Darryl’s worldview that forces him to conclude that Christians have always lived in pessimistic times. Darryl’s apriori militant amillennialism requires him to look at all history and all the future as “pessimistic times.” If Darryl did not have this worldview component, then Darryl wouldn’t be interpreting all of history through these pessimistic lenses. I especially note this because Darryl insists that he has no use for Worldview thinking and yet here we find Darryl engaged in Worldview thinking at its finest. In point of fact, R2K Theology is Worldviewism at its finest.

3.) Can you imagine attending a party with Darryl? He makes Eyeore and Oscar the Grouch look like winsome dinner guests. Darryl makes Schopenhauer and Voltaire look like guys you’d like to invite to your next garden party to hand out party favors.

Imagined conversation with Darryl at a party,

Guest — “So what do you do for a living Darryl?”

Darryl — “I write books and articles trying to convince people how pessimistic the times are in which we live.”

Guest — “Well, that sounds interesting.”

Darryl — “It depresses me and everyone who reads me but I press on.”

4.) Note that for Darryl, that the “not yet” of his eschatology completely obliterates the “now” of his eschatology. We can be optimistic about the sweet bye and bye but what is required now is pessimism. Now, R2K types will object and say that their “now” is Spiritual and that the problem with people like me is that my eschatology is “over-realized.”

Which brings us to our next point,

5.) R2K really is platonic or neo-platonic or, if one prefers, gnostic. We see this in the quote above that contrasts real warfare (spiritual) with non real (non spiritual) warfare. This is neo-platonism. Neoplatonism is the idea that the “spiritual’ (i.e., non-physical, ethereal eternal) aspect of life (Darryl’s Church realm) is superior to the more physical aspects. The Neoplatonic R2K perspective implicitly denies the biblical facts that man is a unit, and that God is concerned with the whole of our being and with all of life. R2K Neoplatonism leads to a spiritual contempt for God’s material creation and for the laws God has ordained in such areas as education or social order issues.

For Darryl and R2K, the really important part of life is in the realm of the Church. In the Church alone one finds the Spiritual. Outside in the common realm all one finds is the temporal and the carnal. In R2K thinking the temporal realm suffers soul sleep upon the consummation of all things. As such the temporal realm only finds its importance as it supports those working in the Spiritual realm.

If one wants to glory in pessimism, R2K is the way to go. However, if one optimistically believes, along with Machen, that Revival is coming, one will want to eschew R2K’s call for eternal pessimism and embrace the confidence and optimism of Machen.