Apologetics – Page 7

Rev. Flyhart Dishing Out Alienist FlyShite

“The other thing I would say besides SSR and SPR is get rid of the adversative called ‘but,’ from your vocabulary when it comes to racism. I am so tired of talking to people about this issue and the first thing out of their mouths are, ‘but I am not a racist,’ Get rid of that. Or, ‘But have you seen the statistics.’ Ok, let’s just close our mouths white church and let’s learn, let’s listen let’s see life through a different set of eyes. I’m convinced as a white man who is 61 years old, that I have no idea what it is like to grow up as a person of color but I’m going to learn because my oldest son and his wife have adopted three biracial children. And it’s amazing. We are getting nailed by both sides. And I can’t wait (I’m sure it will involve some suffering) but to learn from these two (black) men (sitting behind me) and from all of their (black) congregations.”

PCA TE (Rev.) Bob Flayhart
Oak Mountain Presbyterian Church
Evangel Presbytery, Central Alabama
Said from the Pulpit during a church service

1.) These kinds of irrational outbursts are getting more and more common. This fact communicates that the Alienists are losing their grip. They see that the Marxist Overton window that has been in place for so long – a Marxist Overton Window that they have reinterpreted Christianity consistent with – is shifting against them and they are doing all they can to stop the Overton Window shift from moving in a historically Christian direction.

2.) All of Church history is against these clowns as the two 800 page Anthologies have demonstrated. (“Who Is My Neighbor” – 2^nd edition & “A Survey Of Racialism In Christian Sacred Tradition.”)

3.) Realize what this logically vacuous 61 year old clergy is saying is that one should never, in response to his ridiculous assertions, ever respond with “but have you seen the evidence that reveals you’re saying painfully embarrassing things?” Further, you are not to respond by speaking things, in response to his dumb – really dumb colloquy, like “but according to God’s standard I am not a racist.” No, you are not to object at all when this 61 year old clergy comes to you slobbering out mindless tropes. You’re just supposed to mindlessly nod your head in agreement with this lobotomized outpatient.

4.) Christianity is a belief system of doctrines based upon the revelation of the triune God and His character as found in Holy Writ. If that belief system of doctrines is learned, owned, and constantly grown in, why do I have to know what it is like to grow up as a black person? Why would a black Christian ever have to know what it is like to grow up as a white person who has been, his whole life, had the bogus Marxist accusation of “racist” heaved at him? This whole idea that I can’t be an increasingly sanctified Biblical Christian unless I learn what it was like to grow up as a black person … or unless I appreciate what it is to struggle as an oppressed woman … or unless I know the struggles of growing up abused is just utter tripe born of the anti-Christ Marxist doctrine of intersectionality. Odds are that Rev. Bob Flyhart doesn’t even know what intersectionality is or that he is a practitioner of it.

5.) If the black men sitting behind him are Biblical Christians opposed to the flyshite coming out of Flyhart’s mouth, I can hope, along with Flyhart, that he has the capacity to learn from them also. However, I suspect that if they are at this church service sitting right in back of Flyhart as he speaks that they also are clueless as to what Biblical Christianity is.

6.) Oh, I’m sure Flyhart is going to learn. I suspect he is going to get his learning “good and hard.” I wonder if masochistic self-inflicted suffering contributes to sanctification?

Darryl Gnostic Hart Says George Washington’s Wasn’t Successful Because He Prayed

“Washington was a general and he was successful as a soldier and a president not because he prayed.

Govt. is not Sunday school or church. and to roll back the perils you see afflicting young men in public schools, you want govt. to act. That’s why you talk about Xian govt.”

Darryl Gnostic Hart
Post on X

1.) Keep in mind that Hart is, after Doug Wilson, the king of dichotomy. We find another subtle one here. It is true that Washington was a general l and he was successful as a soldier and a president. However, before Washington was a successful soldier and president he was a man. Would Hart contend that Washington’s success as a man is not related at all because he prayed? And if we would account Washington’s success as a man, at least in part, to the fact that he prayed then it is indeed the case that on some level Washington’s success as a general and a president was because he prayed. Perhaps Hart would insist that prayer has nothing to do with a man’s success in whatever field he enters into. If Hart would insist that, I would contend that Hart is a defacto Deist. God makes men the way the are and the religious practices of a man — practices that originate in his embraced religion — have nothing to do with a man’s success in whatever field he pursues. As usual Hart hasn’t thought through what he says.

Keep in mind though it doesn’t matter what Hart says because despite many quotes from Hart that are clearly outside the boundaries of Biblical Christianity nobody holds him accountable.

2.) The fact that Government is not Sunday School doesn’t mean that Government is not moral or immoral depending on the policies it pursues. Government doesn’t have to be a Sunday School in order to operate in a manner consistent with the Christian faith. Of course Hart (the pretend historian by occupation) is just being a-historical with this outburst;

“The magistrate must root out idolatry and false worship, for God commands that His truth be upheld and blasphemies suppressed by those he has set in authority.”

Martin Luther (1525)

“It is the duty of the magistrate to suppress idolatry and superstition that the true worship of God may flourish, as commanded by the Almighty.” John Knox (1554)

“Magistrates are bound to defend the worship of God and to purge their realm of idolatry, which provokes God’s wrath against the land.” John Calvin (1559)

“Rulers, as ministers of God, must cast down idols and false teachings, ensuring that the true faith is upheld in their governance.”

Jan Hus (1414)

3.) Since public schools are indeed government schools the government does indeed have the responsibility to roll back the perils afflicting all students while they are in or at school.

Someone recently insisted to me, that it was their conviction that Hart is a subversive, purposely subverting the Reformed faith. Anybody who has a Christian worldview can easily see that.

4.) Finally, people talk about Christian government because so many of our Reformed Fathers talked about Christian government.

The Arc Towards A New World Order

“Towards the end of the 1920s, Carnegie (Marburg) funded the American Historical Society to prepare a report detailing what the future of the US should be. The Seventh volume of this report specifies, ‘The future belongs to collectivism….’ Professor Harold J. Laski, philosopher of British socialism, made the following comment is his testimony about the commission’s report; ‘At bottom, and stripped of its carefully neutral phrases, the report is an educational program for a socialist America.”

Wm. Stuart

The Invisible College – p. 307

The aim of the elite, at least since the Congress of Vienna has been a New World Order where the globalist rule over a serf/slave hoi polloi. In order for this collectivist vision to become reality top down control is required. In order to gain top down control what is required is some kind of social credit system where a Oligarchy government has precise control over the flow of money. This will require some kind of digital money system that even now is talked about in every corner of the financial world.

Further, there will have to be control of movement. Control of money can do that somewhat but what is being aimed at, is the fifteen minute cities where movement will be unnecessary. The idea is that you will have everything at your fingertips as only fifteen minutes away, hence there is no need to travel. This was always the idea of the electric cars which could be shut off remotely if someone was traveling beyond permission.

If there is a contest right now as between nations the contest is not so much national as it is over who will have the right to sit on top of the NWO pile. In other words, I am not confident that any of the elite desire a return to Nations. I am confident that the desire of the different elite is a desire to be the ones who are the uber-elite in a New World Order they all desire to cobble together.

I highly recommend Wm. Stuart’s book as a encyclopedia that traces the theme of the attempt to build a New World Order. Stuart, starts way before the Congress of Vienna to build his case. Regardless of when in time you start it is pretty clear that the major point of contention for the Biblical Christian is as against those who would stitch together a global empire. The Biblical Christian understands that God deals with people groups as in their people groups and as such any attempt to build a New World Order is yet another attempt by fallen man to return to the Tower of Babel rebellion.

If one desires to understand the times, one must get their head around the fact that fallen man is doing all he can to return to Babel in order to “make a name for himself,” with the ultimate purpose and end of destroying the rule of the Lord Jesus Christ.

R2K Scott Clark On X … Continuing To Spread His Heresy

“Theocrats/CNs/Theonomists/etc fail to account for the progress of revelation and redemptive history. They all write as if the state of that people has not expired (WCF 19.4) but it has. This was true in the 16th century and in the 17th century.

We can see it in some of the most important Reformed writings of the period against tyranny. In his treatise On The Right of Magistrates Theodore Beza did this very thing. Our writers all recognized that national Israel was a temporary, typological institution but they all also assumed that there must be a state religion. That assumption, more or less demanded that they contradict their own reading of redemptive history. So, they talked about the king of France, as if he were king David and France, as if it were national Israel. It was incoherent and it remained so.”

Dr. R(2K) Scott Clark
X Post

1.) Theonomists agree that the state of the people hath expired but we also agree with the rest of WCF 19:4 which R2K Clark loves to disingenuously leave out when he quotes WCF 19. Here is the complete rendering of 19:4;

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

As many times as R2K Clark has been reminded of the part above in the bold one has to conclude that Clark is consistently in violation of the 9th commandment bearing false witness against the WCF.

I will guarantee you that all those 16th and 17th century Reformed writers, who R2K Clark styles “Theocrats” were operating under the umbrella of WCF 19:4. If that is true that means that R2K Clark, were he an honest man, would tell the world that his position on WCF 19:4 is in contradiction to what WCF 19:4 teaches. I mean, either R2K Clark is in violation of WCF 19:4 or else the Reformed Fathers that Clark complains about were in violation of WCF 19:4. Y’all can take R2K Clark … I’ll stick with Rutherford, Gillespie, Calvin, and their tribe.

2.) R2K Scott Clark is a Theocrat. I’ll say it again in case you skimmed past that. For all the bitching that R2K Clark does about Theorcats, Theonomists, and CN’s he is himself a Theocrat.

This is due to the fact that theocracy is an inescapable category. As a Theonomist I desire our government to rule consistently with God’s Law. That makes me a theocrat. However, as a anti-theonomist R2K Clark desires our government to rule consistently with Natural Law. Natural Law is thus R2K Clark’s God and as a Natural Law Theocrat R2K Clark insists on the State ruling according to that law.

Now, keep in mind that even the Christian Natural Law fanboys can’t agree on what Natural Law does and does not teach. Natural Law fanboys such as Dr. Stephen Wolfe and Dr. R2K Clark get along with one another like homeless people get along with soap and bathing. As such, since there is no uniform voice on what Natural Law, R2K Clark is a Theocrat who takes the State as his God. The State will determining the meaning of Natural Law and all the little Natural Law Theocrats will have to bow to the State as their God. Indeed, this is R2K Clark did during the Covid ruse. He followed his state god and insisted that the Churches shut down. R2K Clark is a Theocrat. He merely has a different Theo in his cracy (Theocracy).

3.) Of course this means that R. Scott Clark owns and practices a State religion. The very thing he complains about Theonomists, Theocrats, and CN’s. The State religion that R2K Clark practices is humanism. R2K Clark is a humanist Theocrat. R2K Clark practices the State religion except for a few hours on Sunday when he tips his cap to a God who is only ruling in the church realm. Keep in mind, that it is that God (who is no God) in R2K Clark’s church realm that is teaching R2K Clark that the God of the Church realm is not the explicit God over the common realm (public square).

4.) By now we see a couple truths;

a.) R2K Clark is the incoherent one. There are so many contradictions in R2K that it is amazing that R2K Clark can spit without dribbling it all over himself.

b.) It is R2K Clark’s reading of redemptive history that sucks. He is basically a Marcionite. He finds so much discontinuity between the Old and New Testament that he basically owns a different God from the Old Testament saints as well as those Reformed Fathers he so bitterly rails against.

Like all R2K chaps, R2K Scott Clark is a deceiver of the body of Christ. Now, like all sinners they may have the best of intentions, but at the end of it all they are advocating a different religion, and a different Christ.

Tucker Carlson Says; “Satan Rules The World”

“The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

I Corinthians 4:4

I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.

John 14:30

“Satan rules the world.”

Tucker Carlson
Interview with Ambassador Mike Huckabee

This is my Father’s world:
Oh, let me ne’er forget
That though the wrong seems oft so strong,
God is the ruler yet.
This is my Father’s world,
The battle is not done:
Jesus who died shall be satisfied,
And earth and Heav’n be one.

Maltbie Davenport Babcock

I can’t count how many times I’ve heard the Carlson quote from well meaning but errant Christians who cite it in order to suggest that the bad things that happen in this world can be explained by a saying, “Well, Satan is, after all, the God of this world.”

This is a serious misunderstanding of what is being said in Scripture. When John records Jesus saying,”the ruler of this world is coming,” we must take into account a few matters. First, John, throughout is book uses the word “world” in at least ten different ways. Indeed, the word “world” in John, at times, becomes a bit of a frequently used word with a technical meaning.

In 12:40 when Jesus says, “for the ruler of this world is coming,” he does not mean that the triune God is not sovereign over all matters and all men. If Jesus did mean that He would be in contradiction with Himself as He says elsewhere when speaking of the Elect;

“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand”

John 10:28-29

Clearly, if God is “greater than all” that means that God is the ruler over Satan and being the ruler over Satan, God is the ruler over the ruler of this world.

How do we resolve then, this apparent contradiction in John’s Gospel where on one hand Jesus speaks of “the ruler of this world is coming,” and on the other hand Jesus stating that “My Father … is greater than all?”

The answer is not complex. In John 14 where Jesus speaks of Satan as “the ruler of this world,” He is speaking of the world here, not in a physical sense as if Satan is in charge of planet earth. Instead, Jesus is speaking of Satan being the ruler of this fallen world system as it lies in Adam’s rebellion.

John uses the word “world”in the sense of “world system” other times in His Gospel;

John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out.

John 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

So, we have to make distinctions then between the John’s usage of the word “world” being use to communicate a contemporary world system in its moral, ethical, and cultural dynamics, which because it is fallen, hates Jesus Christ and His Kingdom and the usage of the word “world” to mean planet earth and everything that happens upon it.

This reminds us that in this world (planet earth) there exists two world systems or Kingdoms. There is the world system (Kingdom) wherein Satan remains the ruler in the sense that it lies under the evil one. Paul mentions this world when he writes the Colossians (1:13) and says, “You’ve been delivered from the dominion of Darkness,” but then adds the phrase that teaches us that there exists also another world system (Kingdom) on planet earth; “to the Kingdom of God’s dear Son, whom He loves.”

So, Satan remains the “ruler of this world” but that does not mean that Satan has a domain that is outside of God’s sovereignty over Satan. Indeed, with the coming of Christ’s Kingdom we know that Satan’s world system is being increasingly driven back. Like a mustard seed the Kingdom that Jesus established is ever growing and with each expansion of growth this present evil age is being constricted. A day will one day come when the Kingdom of God shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.

In order to reinforce God’s exhaustive sovereignty in John’s Gospel we remember Jesus’ words to Pilate;

“You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.”

Pilate had authority over Pilate the same way that Satan is the ruler of this world. In both cases the authority or rulership is derivative of God’s sovereignty. Yes, each had their authority or rulership but only as governed by the Sovereign God.

All this to say that Satan is not God over God in this world. Satan does not rule the world, though Satan does rule over those who are under His sway, but only so long as the sovereign God determines. Satan has had countless human minions that he once ruled under his world system, but God, who is great in mercy, plundered His elect from Satan’s rule and brought them into a different Kingdom, under a different ruler.

The passage in I Cor. 4 is much the same. Again, we have Satan, as the “god of this age.” But keep in mind that with the triumph of Christ the age to come (which is a different age than “this age”) has arrived and with that arrival of the age to come the strong man (Satan) has been bound (Luke 11:21) and Jesus who has bound the strong man is plundering his kingdom. There remain those (unbelievers) whom the god of this age (Satan) has blinded so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. However, the elect among these unbelievers will, in God’s time, come to see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ. Satan does not have totalistic control. He is only a god (of this age) in a very limited sense. That limited sense is limited because the Lord God Omnipotent Reigneth and of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever.

Amen.