Apologetics – Page 38

James White Attacks Stephen Wolfe …. McAtee can’t Resist

James White on Twitter;

There is absolutely, positively NO PLACE in Christ’s Church for “white,” or “Asian” or “Black” or “Latino” or anything else *used as a divisive label.* The unity of the body is in the singular, undivided, indispensable righteousness of Christ, NOT in skin color, kin, tribe or nation.

Bret responds,

1.) What counts as a divisive label? When Stephen Wolfe speaks something that is objectively and indisputably true on a Twitter thread that;

“White evangelicals (as a group) are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America…. It is simply true that white evangelicals, as a group, have been essential to the success of the GOP and conservative causes, and they remain the most reliable voters for those opposing woke and trangenderism…. “Lone bulwark” means that the absence of the white evangelical bloc would torpedo us into moral insanity. There is no other group (that I’m aware of) whose absence would cause this.”

Is that being “divisive” per James White? I think it must mean that in White’s World because he posted these comments in response to Wolfe’s observation.

So, I wonder if Rev. Dr. White might explain just exactly how such an observation is creating divisiveness in Christ’s church?

The inspired St. Paul could say that “All Cretans are liars.” Per Rev. Dr. White should St. Paul be sanctioned for that allegedly divisive comment? What about when Jesus called the Samaritan woman a “dog.” Should Jesus be sanctioned for that allegedly divisive comment?

2.) The Rev. Dr. White has a false dichotomy above. It is true that the unity of the body is found in the righteousness of Jesus Christ but that does not in turn mean that Christian people can’t also find a unity in “skin color, kin, tribe or nation.” Listen to Dr. John Frame on the matter;

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers inthe faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

White makes the popular mistake in that opening comment of thinking that somehow grace destroys nature. A Yellow man becomes a Christian and suddenly his Yellowness disappears, with all the implied cultural and racial heritage, into the Christian regenerating ether. Why can’t these people like the Rev. Dr. White realize that we can have both a unity with our Christian Kin that is unique but doesn’t violate a confederated unity with our fellow Christians who are not of our people and place?

Again, keep in mind, that the church has only begun to think this way with the rise of the Civil rights movement. Never, in the Church’s history has anyone ever thought like James White and his ideological clan on this subject except perhaps the Anabaptist levelers.

Rev. Dr. James White going all declarative writes;

“I will NOT stand with anyone who seeks to undermine that unity with the use of such labels. I stood up in 2018 after MLK 50 and said the EXACT same thing. One man called for an “ecumenical council” to condemn me as a heretic for daring to say the Lord’s Table is a place not for ethnicities or labels but solely as a place for focus upon Christ.”

Bret responds,

1.) Really, very few care who James White will or will not stand with. I think they call this “attention seeking behavior.”

2.) White is not angling for unity here. White is thumping for uniformity. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

3.) I’m not going to comment on the last sentence above because I suspect I need more context to know what really went on there. Still, if the Lord’s Table is not a place for labels, I think that means the Rev. Dr. James White is all good with paedo-communion since the work of disallowing toddlers to the table requires the work of “labeling” them.

Rev. Dr. White writes;

The only bulwark against the moral insanity of the West is found in *fidelity to Scripture as the revelation of God and its proclamation of Christ as Lord of the nations, the sole and only way of peace with God, and hence the only way of peace amongst men.* That message is not white, black, green or blue. I have far, far, FAR more in common with a Chinese pastor standing firm in the face of CCP torture than I do a white evangelical whose commitment to Scripture is weaker than his commitment to a political party or cause.

Bret responds,

1.) Here White snipes at Stephen Wolfe’s comment above. I don’t want to put words in Wolfe’s mouth but I suspect that Wolfe would say (and I know I would say) that the reason that “White evangelicals (as a group) are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America” is precisely because of their, in White’s words, “fidelity to Scripture as the revelation of God and its proclamation of Christ as Lord of the nations, the sole and only way of peace with God, and hence the only way of peace amongst men.*”

As such the Rev. Dr. White has given us the fallacy of a false dichotomy. False dichotomies are all the rage these days among those reputed to be pillars in the Church today.

2.) Of course that message is “not white, black, green or blue.” However, that is not the question at hand, though we are certainly thankful that the Rev. Dr. White has cleared that up for everyone. The question at hand is, “which kin group, as completely in God’s providence and grace, quite apart from any idea that they are made of anything but dirt, has been that kin group who are serving as the bulwark against moral insanity in America?” And whether Dr. White wants to admit it or not, the answer to that is the White Anglo Saxon Christian people.

Please forgive me Rev. Dr. White for committing the sin of noticing.

3.) But the question is does White have more in common with a WASP pastor who is his cousin standing firm in the face of the American Unipolar Party than he has in common with a Chinese pastor standing firm in the face of the CCP? I doubt if the Rev. Dr. White would get anywhere near to answering that question.

The Rev. Dr. White writes,

It is time we all took a deep, deep breath, backed up about a year or so, and said, “Let’s try this again, slowly, carefully, without the influence of undo emotion, and let us in grace and love toward fellow believers think this through.” As soon as it comes to our using ethnic groups as meaningful cohorts rather than the unity of the body in the gospel, we will know we have lost our way!

Bret responds,

It is time that those reputed to be pillars in the Church took a deep, deep breath, backed up about a year or so, and said, “Let’s try this again once we read Dow and Achord’s book, ‘Who is My Neighbor.’ Let’s read it slowly, carefully, without the influence of the emotions of Cultural Marxism coursing through our veins. As soon as it comes to the inability to admit creational categories exist within the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ we will know we have lost our way and instead are following the way of old Slewfoot who has convinced us that Bono was inspired when he wrote;

I believe in the Kingdom Come
Then all the colours will bleed into one
Bleed into one
But yes, I’m still running

The Unity of the Godhead As Embraced By Socialists

For the Socialist heaven on earth must present perfection and perfection requires unity among all mankind. This kind of unity is a “atheistic” pursuit born of the theological convictions of their atheism. It is theological because this drive for unity is connected to the socialist’s god concept. Theologically, we know that one attribute of godhood is unity in the deity and since there must be unity in all Godheads, and since man is now the “godhead man,” due to the atheism of the Socialist, man must be unified as a atheistic theological necessity. Unity, for the progressive (socialist), means universal submission to a single sovereignty, and unity in and of the world means universal submission to a single world government. In such a unity, required by both the theology and the teleology of Humanism, two or more distinct races living side by side as segregated, in distinct cultural communities is intolerable. It is intolerable because it defies both their theology and their eschatology.

Because the above is true, totalistic integration into a unified globalist order therefore becomes the Holy Grail for which all “noble” men must strive per the Marxist (socialist). In point of fact, total human integration resulting in total humanistic unity becomes a life and death issue for the Social Gospelers, and the Progressives. (Marxists all). Integration is the necessary step to be taken down the long road of the totalitarian perfection that is heaven on earth. Anyone who dares to question integration is obstructing the Humanist god and worse yet, the sure introduction of heaven on earth. Those who oppose unquestioned integration are thwarting the will of the collective man god and the progressive vision for the inevitable destiny of man. Such a person must be dealt with by elimination. He must be denounced. He must be destroyed.

All of the above provides the backdrop for why biblical Christians who advocate for a Christian social order are so thoroughly hated both inside and outside the Church. We are the ones who are standing athwart this project, because of our Biblical convictions, and are saying that this kind of pursuit of a New World Order, whether expressed among families or nations is neither Biblical nor natural. Biblical Christians have no desire to be drawn into the ever consuming maw of the socialist beast which exists to gnaw away all distinctions among men so that a “New Socialist Man” can be created. The Biblical Christian realizes that man is not God either considered individually or collectively and because of that the Biblical Christian sees no necessity to live in a world where “all colors bleed into one.” In point of fact, the Biblical Christian is adamantly resolved that this thinking “shall not pass.”

Yet, Legion is the name of simpletons in “Christian” pulpits and behind lecterns in “Christian” Seminaries who have not thought this matter through and so are on the socialist “love train.”

“People all over the world (Everybody)
Join hands (Join)
Start a love train, love train
People all over the world (All the world, now)
Join hands (Love ride)
Start a love train (Love ride), love train”

God save us from well intended simpletons.

The Miserable State of the Clergy Seen in the Words of Tim Keller

“I’d rather be in a democracy than a state in which the government is officially Christian. Instead of trying to take power, I think what Christians ought to be doing is trying to renew their churches.”

-Tim Keller, Wall Street Journal

02 September 2022

“Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
Henry II of England
Referring to Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170

1.) Understand what Keller has said here. He has said that he would rather be under a government that is non Christian than under a government that is officially Christian. Tim would rather have his magistrates be Christ haters than have magistrates who are in submission to Christ.

2.) Tim talks about how Christians shouldn’t “try to take power.” The question is “take power from whom?” Presumably, in Tim’s world Christians shouldn’t try to take power from non Christians and should be happy to be ruled by Christ-haters. Has Rev. Keller ever considered that all power is derived from God, hence, godly men must pursue power in order to honor God using power for righteous and godly ends — something that the Christ-hater can not do if he is consistent with his Christ hating worldview?

3.) You know Tim, it is possible to both try and renew our Churches and in godly ways seek to take power. The right honorable Dr. Rev. Tim Keller posits a false dichotomy when he suggest that Christians have a binary choice wherein they can either take power or they can renew their churches but they can’t do both. Has Tim ever considered that one piece of evidence that Churches are being renewed is that they seek to exercise godly dominion over the state apparatus?

Jon Harris On Transgenderism … McAtee Corrects Harris

Jon Harris is one of the guys in a white hat. Typically his material is quite good. However, Jon remains a Baptist and here his Baptist hackles were apparently raised by something Carl Trueman wrote. Jon tries to correct Trueman but fails miserably as I intend to demonstrate.

Jon Harris opined,

“People who think they’re trans don’t think they’re trans because they chose to be trans. On the contrary, they believe it was not their choice. They think its who they actually are independent of any choice they made. They believe gender is a social construct. So they root their identity in social interactions. (i.e. how they “experience” the world). This is why it is so important for them to receive social affirmation. People must experience them as their trans identity if gender is a social construct. Carl Trueman hinging this all on “radical individualism” is causing Christians to make basic mistakes. Mistakes like thinking Baptist theology leads to transgenderism because it supposedly bases Christian identity on choice. Mistakes like mocking people who think they’re trans by saying “if I chose to be a cat would I be?” It’s not about choice. It’s about experience. We need to clearly say, “You do not experience life as a trans person.” Often I hear Christians giving up the entire argument by saying things like, “That may be your experience, but what is true?” What is true is that they experience the world according to the way they were designed. Let’s stop reinforcing delusion.”

1.) Of course people who are trans don’t admit that they chose to be trans and so don’t think they chose to be trans. Just as sodomites don’t admit that they chose to be sodomite and so don’t think they chose to be sodomite. Very few people admit to choosing a lifestyle that is an abomination (Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22). So that people who think they’re trans refuse to say they consciously chose to be trans doesn’t mean that they didn’t consciously choose to be trans. Of course they chose to be Trans. Unless one is going to buy into the idea that they were genetically coded to be trans there is no other choice except that for whatever reason based possibly on whatever trauma in their lives they chose to be Trans.

2.) Of course they wouldn’t say that it was their choice. Now, I grant that it is possible that they didn’t even fully realize that they were making a choice when they made the choice and I grant that something horrific may well have entered into their life that moved them to make that choice, but for whatever reason, consciously made or silently acquiesced to, at some point it was decided that being trans was preferable to living in harmony with the way God made them.

3.) Of course they think being trans is who they actually are independent of any choice they made. What else would they say? If they admit that they made a choice then the whole “this is just the way I am” argument goes right out the door. That “this is just the way I am argument” is key because without it their perversion can’t gain traction. Without that argument then the abnormality of it all has to be admitted.

4.) Jon offers that Trans people root their identity in the way they experience the world suggesting that this “way they experience the world” is different from making a choice to be Trans. However, Jon, at this point has given us a false dichotomy when he wants to make a significant distinction Trans people being the way they are because they chose to be that way and Trans people being the way they are because that is the way they experience the world. At this point we have to ask … “Did not the Trans person choose to experience the world in the way in which they experience the world?” Jon’s false dichotomy gives his argument no traction.

5.) I have my issues with Carl Trueman but in this case Trueman is correct when he observes that all of this grows out of a radical atomistic individualism that has swamped the West. On this score Trueman has not made any mistakes.

6.) Whether Harris likes it or not Baptist Baptism “theology” and transgenderism “ideology” do indeed have a point of contact and that point of contact is the denial that God does designate a person’s identity. Baptists deny God designating a baby’s identity as “covenant member” requiring the individual to choose for themselves and Tranny’s deny God designating a person’s gender as male or female, allowing the individual to decide for themselves. For both the Baptist and Transgender identity at a pivotal point is a social construct. For Baptist being in the covenant or not in the covenant is a social construct to be determined by the sovereign individual. As such they will not give Baptism to a child until that child determines their own social construct by choosing Jesus. For the Tranny being male or female is a social construct to be determined by the sovereign individual, and there are parents that are so buying into this that they are refusing to tell their child what gender they are so that the child can choose the social construct themselves.

Maybe we should refer to such parents as “Gender Baptists?”

Naturally enough, Jon doesn’t like this linkage because it hits too close to his Baptist home.

7.) I must agree with Jon about not using the “If I think I’m a cat does that make me a cat” argument with the Trans person because it is clearly the case that we are at a point that their replying with “yes” is not going to make very many people blink.

8.) And I agree that we must quit reinforcing delusion. However, Jon’s apologetic that we must tell the Trans person that they have to stop experiencing the world as Trans requires them to make a choice to do so, and at that point we see, once again, that Jon is involved in a false dichotomy.

But he has to reach for this false dichotomy because otherwise he may have to give up his Baptist radical atomistic individualism.

The War Heats Up … McAtee Corrects Clark — Part III

RSC writes on the R2K (Thomistic) theory of Nature & Grace;

The distinction between nature and grace is a Christian basic. It is, however, one of the many distinctions that we seem to have lost during the theological chaos of the twentieth century. Christians have distinguished between nature and grace since the beginning of the post-apostolic age and the Apostle Paul assumes it through the book of Romans as a basic, evident truth. There are some things we know by nature, e.g., that God is (Rom 1:19–20) and his moral, natural law (Rom 2:12–15).

Bret responds,

I have written so much on Natural Law theory on Iron Ink that my finger tip pads are worn out on the subject. Briefly let it be said here again,

1.) Natural law was popular among the pagan Stoics and other philosophers.
2.) They in turn picked it up from Aristotle. Aristotle was a pagan.
3.) Natural law is an especially peculiarly Roman Catholic method of reasoning
4.) Thomas Aquinas refined Natural Law providing a unbiblical synthesis between Natural Law and Gods Law.
5.) Natural Law has come in hot and heavy in R2K as a result of the Jesuit trained Dr. David Van Drunen being the R2K guru.

A good book that demolishes R2K’s love affair with Natural Law is Dr. Robert A. Morey’s, “The Bible, Natural Theology and Natural Law: Conflict or Compromise?”

Below is just one piece on Iron Ink that labors to demonstrate the theory of Natural Law the way R2K develops it. Plugging “Natural Law” into the Iron Ink search mechanism will provide many more entries on Natural law.

Observations On Natural Law Theory

RSC writes more on Nature and Grace;

From nature, we learn the arts (e.g., grammar), arithmetic, and science. We learn the doctrines of the Trinity, Christology, salvation, and the church from grace (i.e., Holy Scripture). When we fail to acknowledge this basic distinction, confusion follows.

Bret responds,

R2Kt Virus, Natural Law, And Attacks On Biblical Christianity — Part I

R2Kt Virus, Natural Law, And Attacks On Biblical Christianity — Part II

Let it be said here that the Three Forms of Unity do not allow someone who subscribes to them to teach Natural Law the way that R2K teaches Natural Law. I am not dismissing the reality of Natural Law. I am dismissing Natural Law the way that R2K advocates for Natural Law.

RSC writes,

One of the reasons the church taught this distinction was to combat the Pelagian heresy. Pelagius was a British monk who appears on the historical radar, in Rome, in the AD 380s. He was worried about the state of Christian morality. He was offended by Augustine’s emphasis on divine grace. In reaction, he denied that Paul taught a federal theology (wherein Adam and Christ are the heads of humanity). He held that we are not born sinners, but we become sinners when we sin. When we sin we imitate Adam. Pelagius denied the necessity of grace and he taught the possibility of perfection before death. Perhaps his most fundamental error was confusing nature and grace. Arminius and the Remonstrants did the same. Thus, the Reformed were traditionally quite clear about this distinction.

Bret responds,

The implication that only Thomists/Natural Law types get the above paragraph is so ridiculous that it is not worthy of a response. Is Clark saying that all presuppositionalists have been latent Remonstrants?

I’m fine with making a distinction between nature and grace. I am not find divorcing nature from grace so that we are forced to live the “hyphenated-life” (Dualistic) such as some in the R2K school have advocated for repeatedly.

RSC writes,

The Kinists seek to leverage grace with nature. They claim that people naturally congregate in ethnic/racial people groups, and they seek to use their analysis of nature to leverage grace. This is flatly contrary to the plain teaching of God’s Word.

Bret responds,

The Kinists teach that grace restores/renews nature, just like the Reformed have taught through the centuries. As such, since race/ethnicity is a part of nature Kinists understand that when men are visited with grace, that grace does not destroy their nature so that upon redemption they are cleansed of their race/ethnicity just as they are not cleansed of their biological gender. Being rooted and grounded in Christ does not mean I cease being WASP.

Unlike Scott, I actually read and learned from my Calvin;

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin
Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3

When Calvin impugns the “flighty and scatterbrained dreamers” he is impugning the Anabaptists. I think (as I suggested in my book) that R2K is latent Anabaptist.

Matthew Henry also agrees with me;

“Note, It is the will of God that mutual love and affection, converse and communion, should be kept up among relations. Those that are of kin to each other should, as much as they can, be acquainted with each other; and the bonds of nature should be improved for the strengthening of the bonds of Christian communion.”

Matthew Henry Commentary
Numbers Chapter 2:1-2

Charles Hodge agrees with me too;

“The Bible recognizes the validity and rightness of all the constitutional principles and impulses of our nature. It therefore approves of parental and filial affection, and, as is plain from this and other passages, of peculiar love for the people of our own race and country.”

Charles Hodge
Commentary Romans 9

RSC writes;

Under the Mosaic law, there was a clear distinction between Jew and Gentile. The latter were to be regarded as ritually unclean. For Christians, however, that “dividing wall” (Eph 2:14) has been broken down by the death of Christ. Paul writes:

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility (Eph 2:11–16; ESV).

According to Paul, the Gentiles (that’s everyone but the Jews), who have trusted Christ are no longer separated from Jews who have trusted Christ. The old ethnic and religious barriers that had separated them are done away with in the body of Christ. This is true in two senses. The church of the body of Christ no longer observes such distinctions but second and more profoundly, Christ literally broke down those barriers when his body was, as he said at the institution of the Holy Supper, “broken for” us. He abolished the ceremonial laws that separated Christian Jews and Gentiles. The old enmity is gone—it must be. Our enmity with God is abolished in and by the crucified body of Christ.

Bret responds,

Sigh… that a teacher of Israel could read Ephesians 2 through a Cultural-Marxist grid like Red Scott does is just breath-taking. When I read stuff like this I’m reminded of the old Bobby Goldsboro song, “Watching Scotty Grow;”

There he sits with a pen and a yellow pad,
What a confusing lad, that’s our boy
BRLFQ spells mom and dad,
Well that ain’t too bad, ’cause that’s our boy

Let me help you out Scotty on Ephesians 2;

The dividing wall in Ephesians 2 is a reference to the Mosaic Law. Christ tears down the “dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” (Eph 2:14b-15a). When Christ died, God no longer imposed on Jews the rules that once separated them from Gentiles. The purpose of those aspects of the law has now been fulfilled. The laws that specifically divided Jew and Gentile are now done away with. It is not just the ceremonial laws that are now gone, but the old covenant to which they were intricately attached has been replaced by the new covenant. Under the new covenant God no longer imposes these ceremonial expectations on his children. This arrangement grants Gentiles wide open access to enter the kingdom of God. Gentiles do not need to become cultural Jews in order to be Christians.

Further, Paul is not talking about generic ethnic divides but specifically the aspects of the law-covenant that divided Jew from Gentiles. Therefore, someone cannot impose ethnic distinctions onto Paul’s words. The apostle has something uniquely covenantal in mind.

Second, the dividing wall was originally the will of God. To take the word “hostility” in and apply it to racism is dangerous. The dividing wall to which Paul is referring is the Mosaic Law, and the Mosaic Law was God’s idea. He made the wall; then he removed it in Christ. The division was God’s will, not the by-product of the human sin today called “racism.” “Racism,” if and when someone can define it, on the other hand, is the result of human sin and never is/was the result of what God commands or commanded. By applying Ephesians 2:14 to ethnic strife today R2K effectively turn God into a “racist.”

Third, did Christ remove by his death the various differences between peoples/cultures today? Not at all. Before Christ’s death, one people/culture may prefer beer. Another people/culture may prefer wine. After the death of Christ the first people/culture still likes beer and the second people/culture still likes wine. The death of Christ was not intended to move the needle on these types of ethno-cultural differences (except for the aspects of man’s ethno-culture that are sinful). Nor did it overturn other aspects of human relations grounded in creation and nature.

Charles Hodge likewise affirmed this truth;

“It cannot be denied that there is a great difference in men in this respect. Some are morose, irritable, and unsocial in their dispositions, others are directly the reverse … They may be born with these distinctive traits of character, and such traits beyond doubt are in numerous cases innate and often hereditary … It is admitted that nations as well as tribes and families, have their distinctive characteristics, and that these characteristics are not only physical and mental, but also social and moral. Some tribes are treacherous and cruel. Some are mild and confiding. Some are addicted to gain, others to war. Some are sensual, some intellectual. We instinctively judge of each according to its character; we like or dislike, approve or disapprove, without asking ourselves any questions as to the origin of these distinguishing characteristics. And if we do raise that question, although we are forced to answer it by admitting that these dispositions are innate and hereditary, and that they are not self-acquired by the individual whose character they constitute, we nevertheless, and none the less, approve or condemn them according to their nature. This is instinctive and necessary, and therefore the correct, judgment of the mind …

The Irish people have always been remarkable for their fidelity; the English for honesty; the Germans for truthfulness. These national traits, as revealed in individuals, are not the effect of self-discipline. They are innate, hereditary dispositions, as obviously as the physical, mental, or emotional peculiarities by which one people is distinguished from another. And yet by the common judgment of men this fact in no degree detracts from the moral character of these dispositions.”

(Charles Hodge, Syst.Theo.Vol.2, pp.112-113)

” [The] differences between the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro races, which is known to have been as distinctly marked two or three thousand years before Christ as it is now. . . . [T]hese varieties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those cause as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose. . . . God fashions the different races of men in their peculiarities to suit them to the regions which they inhabit.”

Charles Hodge (1797-1878)
Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Section 3 (1872–73)

More fundamentally in Ephesians 2, the church and nation are two different entities governed by Christ in different ways–with different laws and rules of citizenship.

R. Scott Clark and R2K are unwise people with little discernment. The historic Reformed Church while traditionally teaching forms of 2K have never taught R2K. This R2K theology is a completely innovative “Reformed” “Theology” coming to us from the chaos of the second half of the 2oth century.

Be careful who you listen to. Only simpletons and knaves listen to other simpletons and knaves.