Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
“If this [Sinaitic covenant] doesn’t sound like a bargain, recall that the original Israelites did not consider it a bargain either, and they resisted Moses’ efforts to engage them in it. All things considered, many of the first-generation Israelites, who received this covenant while trembling at the foot of a quaking mountain and then wandered in the wilderness, preferred to return to Egypt rather than to enter the covenant with a frightening deity who threatened curse-sanctions upon them if they disobeyed. I do not blame them; their assessment of the matter was judicious and well considered, albeit rebellious. The Sinai covenant-administration was no bargain for sinners, and I pity the poor Israelites who suffered under its administration…I would have resisted this covenant also, had I been there, because such a legal covenant, whose conditions require strict obedience (and threaten severe curse-sanctions), is bound to fail if one of the parties to it is a sinful people.”
Dr. T. David Gordon
The Law is Not of Faith — pg. 251
1.) So God demonstrates His graciousness by being the Lord God who brought them out of the land of Egypt — the house of bondage and yet that same God places Israel under a Mosaic covenant that made the hardships of Egypt look like a life of luxury?
2.) Israel’s proneness to rebel against God and the Mosaic covenant as seen in their preference to return to Egypt was judicious and well considered, even if rebellious?
3.) As New Covenant believers we should have pity on fellow believers in the household of God who lived during the OT epoch since God during that time was not as gracious as the God we serve today? (Can you say Marcionism?)
4.) God put His sinful people under a covenant that He knew and had determined that they would not be able to keep AND had no provision for their forgiveness when they did not keep it. He delighted in doing so?
5.) The OT believers as a party to the Mosaic covenant were a sinful people who were provided no relief in the Mosaic covenant for their sinfulness? All that blood in the sacrificial system meant nothing since our OT brothers could not offer up strict obedience?
“Well, I’m a standing on a corner in Winslow, Arizona And such a fine sight to see It’s a girl, my lord In a flatbed Ford Slowin’ down to take a look at me.”
Take It Easy
Eagles
Last week found me standing on a corner in Ligonier, Indiana while visiting kin.
Ligonier, you must understand is about as rural Indiana as one can get. It was, when I was growing up, the epitome of small town rural Indiana. At about 4000 residents Ligonier once upon a time claimed to be the Marshmallow capital of the world. That industry has long been absent from Ligonier, Indiana. When I was a boy, I would attend Ligonier’s West Noble High School basketball games against whom a uncle competed in Basketball games. I am here to testify that Uncle Kevin did not compete against any Hispanics in 1972 when he was competing against West Noble High School.
A funny thing has happened to Ligonier in the last 25 years or so. A funny thing connected to the surreal reality that upwards of 30 million illegal aliens now live in the USA. That number is so huge it is hard for one to really get their mind around it. However, visiting Ligonier, Indiana (or my hometown of Sturgis, Michigan) begins to make the number concrete.
When I was a boy, and even a young man Ligonier, Indiana and Sturgis, Michigan and many more small towns like them were as white bread as one can possibly imagine. However, with the US policy of porous borders small town America now looks increasingly like what small town Mexico must have looked like in 1975.
For example in Ligonier in the 2010 census Hispanic or Latino of any race were 51.5% of the population. That was an increase of almost 20% form the 2000 census. Further, as of 2020, 23.6% of Ligonier, IN residents were born outside of the country (1.06k people). Also of 2020, 81.2% of Ligonier, In residents were US citizens, which is lower than the national average of 93.4%. In 2019, the percentage of US citizens in Ligonier, IN was 82.6%, meaning that the rate of American citizenship has been decreasing.
Ligonier, I submit, provides a window into what is happening in small town America in these formerly united States. These two links sustain that observation;
While I stood on the corner of Ligonier, Indiana awaiting my Kin’s shopping I found myself observing the surrounding as it were from outside of myself. In the 20 minutes I waited for my Kin to finish her shopping I saw, as in a strange dream the following;
I saw sundry Hispanics walking up and down the sidewalk and it was obvious as to why. From where I stood I could see more than one Mexican Restaurant and several other Hispanic business devoted to bring in the Hispanic clientele. I saw a bakery, dedicated to Eastern European baked goods immediately next door to a bakery dedicated to Mexican baked goods. I saw three ample young ladies walking with a black young gentleman. I saw sundry white chaps passing by in their pick up trucks who had beards right out of Duck Dynasty or ZZ Top. I saw the average joe white person walking the sidewalks. And to add to the bizarre and surreal there I first heard the clopping of horse hooves and then saw sundry Amish buggies go traveling by me containing the Amish folk replete with the distinct attire that the Amish wear. Now toss in the requisite tatts and piercings that has become such a fixture in modern American culture and I found myself humming,
Picture yourself in a boat on a river
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes
Cellophane flowers of yellow and green
Towering over your head
Look for the girl with the sun in her eyes
And she’s gone
Lucy in the sky with diamonds
Lucy in the sky with diamonds
Lucy in the sky with diamonds, ahh
But for me it was;
Picture yourself on a street in a city
Where American towns are now bastardized
Somebody walks by, you’re staring quite boldly
A community now balkanized
Restaurants selling Mexican black beans
Amish coverings on heads
Look for the girl with white in her skin
And she’s gone
Diversity is our strength we’re now dyin’
Diversity is our strength we’re now dyin’
Diversity is our strength we’re now dyin’
Because of my visit to Ligonier, Indiana, as well as previous trips to my hometown of Sturgis, Michigan I can now more easily get my head around 30 million illegal aliens now living in these formerly united States. I can see the havoc that the Biden border policy is playing with the former homogeneity of America. I can visibly see that America is now being ruled by an occupying force that is resolved on destroying America.
And I can most clearly see that the only hope of historic Americans is the rise of peaceful secession movements so that this now balkanized country might become several nations.
Given that the attack on White people is a proxy war w/ the real intent of attacking the Lord Jesus Christ so as to roll him off His throne, any refusal to defend the attempt to replace and even extinguish White people when they are wrongly and summarily attacked is a refusal to defend the reign of the Lord Jesus Christ and thus demonstrates that such refuseniks are cowards and traitors to the Sovereign rule of Jesus Christ as well to their own people.
Yes … it is that serious.
If the Church can’t figure out that faggotry is sin, how do you expect it to figure out that Kinism is righteousness?
If running with the footmen makes the Church weary how shall it ever keep up with the chariots?
People often don’t see the cheek by jowl relationship between R2K and Cultural Marxism. Together they are the positive and negative movements to overthrow Christianity in the Church of Jesus Christ. R2K disallows the Church as from the pulpit to speak contrary to the agenda of the Cultural Marxists. This has the effect of creating a vacuum in the church on many subjects that then allow the input of the broader culture — saturated as it is with the teachings of Cultural Marxism — to take captive the thinking of God’s people in the pew.
So, negatively R2K holds back the Church’s ability to bring a “thus saith the Lord” to the cultural conversation allowing Cultural Marxist to positively fill the gap by giving a word of the Lord from their Lord Beelzebub via Universities, Secondary Schools, Media, and other sources.
Those who embrace and teach R2K hate Jesus Christ and should be excommunicated from His Church.
As God’s people we Christians are created in God’s image and so intuitively
desire to shape the world consistent with the image of God that we are. God has shaped us in His image and so we are rabid to shape the world in the image wherein we have been created.
Because there is no such thing as neutrality people will either seek to shape all of life to the glory of God or they will seek to shape it in rebellion against God. In our living this neither ground that allows us to be neutral nor is there ground that is common in the sense that it neither honors nor dishonors the Creator God.
The church has failed to teach this simple truth robustly, leaving many Christians empty and desiring something that will shape the world in a God honoring direction. The Church, via God’s revelation, has answers to the problems that people can’t help but see but the Church has grown silent under the whip hand of Radical Two Kingdom Theology and the result is that God’s people look for answers from others who see the problems that the Christian sees only to be disappointed because Christ haters, even if they analyze the problem correctly, will always give incomplete solutions.
Marxism in it’s various forms offer terrible solutions, but because it actually seeks to do something about problems in the world, people flee to it. The church has the answer, but has failed God’s people in providing it because she has failed to preach the whole counsel of God to the whole of life.
Cultural Marxism will never be defeated and consigned to the sulfur pit until R2K in the Church is first cast into the lake of fire from which it originated.
In what remains in repudiating R. Scott Clark I will turn to a fisking methodology, taking Clark apart paragraph by paragraph.
R. Scott Clark writes,
De Young speaks positively of “cultural Christianity,” but it is not clear to me that what De Young wants is actually Christian. What he wants is for Christian leaders to “fight” the cultural decay of the West:
BLMc responds,
RSC mentions that Kevin DeYoung desires Christian leaders to “fight” the cultural decay of the West, but we have to ask, what standard are we using to define cultural decay? Clearly, as well will see, RSC will answer that by saying the standard needs to be a human standard. In other words, per RSC, there is no need to fight the cultural decay of the West via special revelation but rather the cultural decay of the West can be fought via Natural Law with an appeal to what can be considered a “common culture” that all humans share. The problem with that is that dog won’t hunt as Yuval Noah Harai reveals in this youtube clip where he argues that Nature teaches that sodomy is natural;
So, what will RSC do here? Yuval Noah Harai stands as a exemplary of cultural decay and yet here he is arguing for sodomy from the same standpoint which RSC argues against cultural decay. How will we resolve this authority conundrum? Will we appeal to Natural Law to answer if we should own RSC’s natural law or if we should own Yuval Noah Harai natural law?
No, an appeal to Natural law will not help us fight cultural decay
RSC expands on his position;
But people want to see that their Christian leaders—pastors, thinkers, writers, institutional heads—are willing to fight for the truth. You may think your people spend too much time watching Tucker Carlson, or retweeting Ben Shapiro, or looking for Jordan Peterson videos on YouTube, or reading the latest stuff from Doug Wilson—and I have theological disagreements with all of them (after all, some of them aren’t even Christians)—but people are drawn to them because they offer a confident assertion of truth. Our people can see the world being overrun by moral chaos, and they want help in mounting a courageous resistance; instead, they are getting a respectable retreat.
BLMc responds,
And the ironic thing here is that Clark and R2K are the one’s leading from the front in a highly non-respectable retreat. They are the ones insisting that there is no “thus saith the Lord” on issues from sodomy to tranny-ism to child grooming and surgical abuse, to cultural Marxism, to economic theft via redistribution theft schemes run by the FEDS, to etc. etc. etc. These issues demand a complete and total retreat and withdrawal from pulpits all across America. R2K pulpits are confidently asserting their “truth” that the Church must be silent on these issues.
It is breathtaking to here RSC lament the respectable retreat that the laity rank and file are receiving from their leaders in the Church when he is at the front of the line demanding the pulpits be silent on matters where God has clearly spoken.
RSC writes,
Here, the classical distinction between nature and grace would really help us. Nothing De Young desires here needs to be Christianized, as it were. The cultural resistance for which he is calling can be done under the rubric of nature. In the culture wars, Christians have the same concerns as non-Christians. This is because these are issues about the creational (or natural) order. This is what our founders understood but we have forgotten.
BLMc responds,
The bottom line is that nature is an inert thing if it is not informed and conditioned by grace. As Yuval Noah Harai demonstrates above nature is not static but requires interpretation. Cornelius Van Til might put have it this way; “There is no nature as fact without and apart from interpretation of fact.” The only reason that Natural Law ever worked in what was once Christendom is because those reading Natural Law were reading it as starting from Biblical presuppositions that were gained from knowing special revelation. Yuval Noah Harai, not having Biblical presuppositions reads natural law very differently, as one might well expect. That is because fallen man suppresses the truth of natural law in unrighteousness.
This is precisely what the canons of Dordt teach;
THIRD AND FOURTH HEADS OF DOCTRINE
Article 4
“There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.”
When R. Scott Clark advocates for this Natural Law nonsense as he does he is in violation of his oath to uphold the canon’s of Dordt. Of course Clark weasels his way around Article 4 by making it say what it doesn’t say.
RSC writes,
Christians have a corner on theological truth, on saving religious truth—Jesus alone is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6). There is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12) but we need neither “Christian Nationalism” nor “cultural Christianity” to get what we want. The LGBTQ agenda can and should be resisted on the basis of nature, reason, and natural law. Homosexuality is patently unnatural. The case for a genetic/biological cause for it has collapsed. It is the result of the corruption of nature, and most often the result of some sort of abuse or neglect.
BLMc responds,
Here we see Clark’s Thomistic/Aristotelian dualism on full parade. There are two paths to truth. There is a theological path to truth which yields salvation for the elect and then there is non-theological natural truth which yields all other forms of “truth.” And never the twain shall meet. Francis Schaeffer was right in his analysis on this subject in his little book, “Escape from Reason.” Clark and R2K are full on epistemological dualists. They bifurcate the realm of grace (church) from the realm of nature (common realm) and so impermeable is the barrier between nature and grace that there is no way that the great Reformed principle “grace restoring nature” dies on the vine.
And once again referring back to the youtube clip of Yuval Noah Harai, R. Scott Clark clearly doesn’t know what the blue blazes he is talking about when he says here, “The LGBTQ agenda can and should be resisted on the basis of nature, reason, and natural law. Homosexuality is patently unnatural. The case for a genetic/biological cause for it has collapsed.”
But you have to give Dr. R. Scott Clark credit. He excels in not knowing what the blue blazes he is talking about. At least the man is consistent.
RSC writes,
What Christians ought to do is to join with other citizens (e.g., Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.) in defending the Bill of Rights and the natural, God-given right to free speech, a free press, free association, and the freedom of religion protected therein.
BLMc responds,
Nobody disagrees with the idea of co-belligerence when it can be achieved. I protest with Roman Catholics all the time against abortion. I could even protest with Muslims against Tranny curriculum in government schools though I might be more inclined to join Muslims in an effort to close down government schools.
However, I would be slow Scotty in getting behind the serial adulterer RFK Jr. If a man can not be faithful to his wife he will never be faithful to his country. Are you arguing Scotty that Christians should vote for a man who has all the morals of a Tom-Cat? Is this what your natural law teaches you Scotty boy?
As De Young notes, most Christians were theocrats in the pre-modern and early modern periods, but there were exceptions that influenced the American founders. He calls attention to Samuel Pufendorf (1632–94), who argued for a form of toleration of religious heretics. Late in his career, John Owen argued for a very limited form of toleration. His fellow Oxford student, John Locke (1632–1704), whose Second Treatise was very influential on the American founders, also argued for toleration. Both argued that it was not the nature or vocation of the state to punish religious heretics. The founders agree. This is why I say that the Christian Nationalism project of Wolfe et al is un-American. I do not mean that they do not have a right to make their case, but I mean that their case is contrary to the ideology under which this nation was founded.
BLMc responds,
I refer RSC to Dr. Stephen’s Wolfe’s book “The Case for Christian Nationalism,” specifically the chapter titled, “Liberty of Conscience” in order for him to see what a fool he is making of himself.
Secondly, it is of interest to note that J. Gresham Machen did not agree with RSC’s line of reasoning. In a letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania Machen wrote in favor or Blue laws (required cessation of activity on the Lord’s Day). Is Clark saying that Machen was being un-American when Machen wrote to the Pennsylvania Governor,
“Will you permit me to express, very respectfully, my opposition to the Bill designated House Bill No. 1 regarding permission of commercialized sport between the hours of two and six on Sunday afternoons?
It is clear that in this matter of Sunday legislation the liberty of part of the people will have to be curtailed. It is impossible that people who desire a quiet Sunday should have a quiet Sunday, while at the same time people who desire commercialized sport on Sunday should have commercialized sport. The permission of commercialized sport will necessarily change the character of the day for all of the people and not merely for part of the people.
The only question, therefore, is whose liberty is to be curtailed. I am convinced that in this case it ought, for the welfare of the whole people, to be the liberty of those who desire commercialized sport.
The widespread prevalence of blue laws in this country put the lie to Scott’s assertion that early Americans were full of toleration for those who violated the first table of God’s law. Also, Scott might want to consider all those blasphemy laws on the books in that States in early America. Again, such a reality testify to the falsity of his claim about toleration in early America.
The idea that R. Scott Clark is a historian is right up there with Bruce Jenner’s claim to be a woman.
RSC writes,
We should agree with De Young’s rejection of Wolfe’s truly dangerous “theocratic Caesarism.” He is correct that Wolfe has quite misunderstood, misconstrued, and misreported the nature and intent of the American founders and he does a good job of showing how that is.
BLMc responds,
Again, theocracy is an inescapable category as we have established in this series and countless other times. Caesarism is more problematic because in my estimation the desire for a Christian strongman prince is likely misplaced until Reformation begins to bubble up from the bottom up. I am not opposed to the concept of Christian strongman unless he exists apart from a solid base of support from the rank and file citizenry. The reason I am opposed to Caesarism is because power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely and I don’t believe that any Christian prince would rule well if there were not checks on his power.
I trust people will see the nuance in the above paragraph.
Finally, in terms of Wolfe and RSC’s accusation that he has misread American history, allow me to say that I would rather be in the leaky ship of Dr. Stephen Wolfe than in the multiplied torpedoed hits of the ship of R. Scott Clark. We have, along the way seen the “abilities” of the historian R. Scott Clark and suffice it to say we have not been impressed in the slightest.
I have issues with Wolfe, which I may take up another time on Iron Ink, but the issues I have with Wolfe pale in comparison to the outright chasm that exists between R2K R. Scott Clark and myself.