Category: Apologetics

Apologetics from the Time Capsule … Lane Keister, R2K and Vitriol (2011)

 Lane wrote,

“If you believe some people on the internet today, R2K theology is the antichrist. They want their neo-Kuyperianism unchallenged over the Reformed world today. But is radical Two Kingdoms so antithetical to the Gospel and to the Reformed faith?”

Bret responds,

As a Rabbi (per Darryl Gnostic Hart) I think I can speak to this.

Is R2K (when I will get some royalties for coining that phrase?) antithetical to the Gospel and the Reformed faith? Well, it depends on what you mean by “antithetical.” If you are asking whether or not R2K in the abstract is antithetical to the Gospel, in the Gospel’s narrow sense, then I would have to say “no.” If you are asking whether or not R2K is antithetical to Christianity in Christianity’s broadest sense, then it would depend upon which discussion I was most recently in.

The Reformed faith has ALWAYS been a comprehensive and totalistic world and life view. If you question this pick up the “Calvin in the Public Square” series by David Hall or Joe Boot’s “Mission of God.”  R2K denies that the Christian faith is comprehensive and totalistic with its denial that grace impinges upon nature. R2k has a Gospel that justifies the abstracted individual and champions a Gospel that is denuded of its public square implications. Can the Church speak on Cultural Marxism in the public square? R2K says …

“No, the Church can not speak against the enemy that is trying to kill Christianity, as Cultural Marxism saturates the public square for that would be impious to do so.”

Rev. K writes,

One could argue that the R2K theology is simply trying to rid the Gospel of all the accretions to the gospel that have been trying to creep in unawares. When I read Michael Horton, for instance, I see a man who is trying with all his might to keep the Gospel the Gospel and to forbid anything else from encroaching on the territory of the Gospel. That’s his heart. I know it is.

Bret responds,

And one could argue that R2K is simply trying to rid Christianity from declaiming against the sins of the zeitgeist so that large Church Presbyterianism can be achieved again. When I read Michael Horton I read a man with the best of intentions but who just does not understand that the Gospel can’t be abstracted from a Christian world and life view.

Rev. K writes,

Ultimately, why would such vitriol be leveled against R2K folk?

Rabbi Bret responds,

You mean the kind of vitriol that says “Don’t trust Dr. Kloosterman”? You mean the kind of vitriol that finds D. G. Hart character assassinating me every time I turn around? You mean the kind of vitriol that Meredith Kline splashed around against Dr. Greg Bahnsen?

“With its gifted and energetic leadership, this movement held the promise of great good. The tragedy of Chalcedon is that of high potential wasted – worse than wasted, for its most distinctive and emphatically maintained thesis is a delusive and grotesque perversion of the teaching of Scripture.”

You mean the kind of vitriol that had T. David Gordon saying,

“It (Theonomy) is not merely the view of the unwise, but the view of the never-to-be-wise, because it is the view of those who wrongly believe that scripture sufficiently governs this arena, and who, for this reason, will never discover in the natural constitution of the human nature or the particular circumstances of given peoples what must be discovered to govern well and wisely.”

And what shall we say of the vitriol of a formerly popular blog referenced above?

But hey … Theological controversy always makes vitriol the number one drink in the saloon, and as such, I don’t mind much – water off a duck’s back and all that – except when the vitriol flingers complain and whine about vitriol being flung about.

Rev. K. offered,

Aren’t the matters concerning church and state secondary to the Gospel?

 Bret counsels,

Not, if the State by its policy is seeking to wipe out Christianity. This is the reality that we are in, in America right now.

Rev. K says,

If they aren’t secondary, then I would argue that one side has made the Gospel something much bigger than it actually is. Church-state relations are secondary matters, not primary. And that should be true whether one is R2K or Neo-Kuyperian. I do not see the same kind of vitriol coming from the R2K guys against Neo-Kuyperianism, with the possible exception of Darryl Hart, and even he is a lot more light-hearted (Harted?) than most people credit him.

Rabbi Bret responds,

When the State becomes the idol du jour, seeking to be God walking on the earth then the law that is the red hot needle that pulls through the scarlet thread of the Gospel must inveigh against the idol state that people might repent of their sin and embrace the God of the Bible. A people infatuated with the God state will always reinterpret Christianity in light of the God State and so Church and State become a major issue to the Gospel because it is the idol that must go.

Rev. K. offers,

Also, I don’t trust Nelson Kloosterman anymore. He has written an encomium on the back of a book that defends Norman Shepherd. He has always been a Klaas Schilder fan. I think Kloosterman is soft on FV issues.

Bret responds,

Was Schilder ever disciplined as a heretic? Has Kloosterman ever been disciplined as a heretic?

Rev. K. writes,

Regardless of what one thinks of Kloosterman, I don’t think this board should tolerate accusations against the R2K guys of distorting the Gospel. I think we have been generally pretty careful about this. But I would especially exhort the Neo-Kuyperians among us- why are you posting what you are posting? Is this going to promote understanding or polarization? We have much to learn from the R2K guys. I think especially Neo-Kuyperians have much to learn from R2K folks. If only there could be open minds.

Rabbi Bret,

I have nothing to learn from R2K theologians when they are in their R2K mode.

This is why the Green Baggins blog has always been such a joke.

Rev. K. writes

The main reason I am saying this is that Neo-Kuyperianism has had pretty much a free reign in Reformed circles during the last century. And yet, Van Drunen does offer significant evidence that 2K theology was much more prominent in the Reformation eras than it is today. This is a strand of Reformed thinking, not just Lutheran thinking. We need to give this a fair hearing, and vitriol against the 2K position isn’t going to help matters. Remember this Proverb (18:13): “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” There’s a lot of that going on today on the internet.

Rabbi Bret responds,

Dr. Venema has exposed the problems with Dr. Van Drunnen’s book and some of the errant conclusions he reaches regarding past eras. Dr. James Anderson has exposed the contradictory problems w/ Dr. Van Drunnen’s book. Dr. John Frame has exposed the errors in Dr. Van Drunen’s book. Dr. Keith Mathison, speaking for Ligonier has raised some serious (and I think unanswerable) questions regarding Van Drunen’s book. Dr. Mark Dever’s interview with Dr. Van Drunen exposes the folly of R2K, and that quite without even trying. Dr Brad Littlejohn has done a fine expose of the problems with Van Drunen.

Legions are the problems that have been exposed regarding R2K by good men and for the most part silence in answering those critiques have been the response.

R2K … Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin.

Of Janissaries and Government Schools

In a cruelty that was both useful and cynical, Islamic Sultans would forcefully implement a blood tax on the peoples of Byzantium. This “blood tax” found the Islamic Infidel seizing from the people of Byzantium their finest sons in order to take them back to Islamadom in order to turn these sons into the most elite special forces military units. These “Janissaries” were not allowed to marry and were considered personally owned by the Sultan. They were provided the very best of foods and drink. Eventually, they would be used as the shock troops against their former land from which they were kidnapped — Byzantium.

Today much the same is done by the Marxist conditioning as accomplished in our K-12 government schools and then our Universities all augmented and supported by our Churches. Only instead of having to kidnap the children Christian parents freely turn their children over to the enemy to be brainwashed. Like the Janissaries of old these children eventually turn on their parents and their former Christian lands in order to conquer them for the cause of Cultural Marxism.

Ibrahim X. Kendi’s Antiracist Discrimination Examined

“The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.”
 

Ibram X. Kendi

1.) Steve Sailer rightly notes here that given this quote by Kendi that, “the essence of CRT is oppression of whites.”

2.) Notice also this quote perfectly encapsulates both Herbert Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance,” and the currently popular idea of equity. Anti-racist discrimination can embrace “tolerance” except for people who practiced discrimination in the past. For those people and their “rights” it is intolerance (Repressive Tolerance) that is to be practiced. Likewise, “equity” is the notion that people who were discriminated against in the past by previous generations need extra help to catch back up to where those who are the descendants of those previous generations now are because of how their forefathers discriminated against them. In pursuance of that, the descendants of those discriminated against in the past receive special advantages and help that the descendants of those who discriminated against them in the past don’t receive.

3.) Of course, all this is posited on the fact that people were uniquely discriminated against in the past. Perhaps there is no doubt that Blacks and others were discriminated against but does that mean that they as a people group have been uniquely discriminated against? A look at the sum of history would demonstrate that at one time or another all people groups have been discriminated against.  Then there is the reality that Black people were discriminated against by their own people when they were captured and used as a form of currency when being sold into slavery. Sure, discrimination has existed but no discrimination is unique to any people group that has ever existed.

4.) It must be said that any White person who embraces this idea has a death wish for both them and their posterity. For a white person to accept this idea is to proclaim that at their heart they are a masochistic and therefore mentally unbalanced person. No people group, in the face of contrived and tenuous reasoning shackles themselves and their progeny to the whims of a weak victim class who can only thrive by creating an environment of false guilt wherein they can flourish. I suppose Whites who will embrace this idea deserve to die out.

5.) Who gets to determine when the present anti-racist discriminations are now equal to past racist discriminations so that all discrimination can be eliminated and how is that assessed? Excuse me if I have my doubts that the White man will ever be able to pay for all of his past putative discriminations even if the White man decided to play along.

An Open Letter To PCA Elders

Just finished reading again Greg Johnson’s Christianity Today article again. There is much about it that is poignant and if anyone can read it without feeling some sympathy for Johnson there is something wrong with them.

However, here’s the thing with Greg Johnson — he of PCA fame. Where does one draw the line? Johnson insists that he is a celibate sodomite. Johnson insists that Jesus has taken away all the guilt and shame associated with being sexually aroused by other men. Johnson thanks Jesus that he has never given into his ongoing temptation to mount other men. For that, we can thank God with Johnson and honestly pray that Johnson never satisfies his sinful sexual orientation by consummating his sinful twisted sexual desires. We can agree that Johnson stands among the Redeemed as he continues to put off the old man of lustful inordinate and twisted desires and puts on the new man of self-control and celibacy.

Here is the kicker though … do we want the men who stand behind the Holy Desk to struggle with this kind of sin? Do we want to make them examples before our little boys and girls? And if we say that is acceptable then what is to stop us from putting men in the pulpit who are sexually oriented towards farm animals?… towards the dead? …. towards little children? Let’s be consistent here… are we ready to say that;

“Well, as long as they’re celibate and don’t act on their sexual desires to have carnal knowledge of our pet Great Dane, Buford, it is perfectly acceptable for them to be preaching and counseling people as our Pastor”?

I don’t doubt that Greg is a wonderful chap — blood-bought by Christ. I don’t doubt that he may be compassionate and understanding. I have had more than one sodomite friend who was both. I don’t doubt he is articulate. I don’t doubt that he can have a profound understanding of theology. What I do doubt … what I know cannot be tolerated is the idea of promoting this aberrant sinful behavior by showcasing it in the Church as existing in the Pulpit. Giving God’s imprimatur to Johnson being in the Pulpit is to normalize this kind of gross sexuality. It is to shout from the rafters that God wants men who sexually want other men — though remaining celibate — in the pulpit. This can be no more true than to say that God wants men who sexually want farm animals, dead people, or little children — though remaining celibate — to be in the pulpit.

A redeemed Greg Johnson — bless his anguish and loneliness — can not be allowed a misplaced sympathy that will only result in creating more Greg Johnsons by way of emulation. It is not alright to have these kinds of desires — even if one wishes they didn’t have them — and it is not alright to say to God’s people “it’s alright to have these kinds of desires and be in the pulpit.” It is no more right than to have those desires and be in a pulpit than it is to have the other types of desires mentioned above and be in a pulpit.

The fact that we are even having this discussion suggests how far we have fallen as a people. It suggests also how mainstream sodomy has become. Sodomy has lost its abhorrence quotient (AQ). We still have an abhorrent quotient for where we might learn of a man’s sexual desire for a child … a man’s sexual desire for a farm animal … a man’s sexual desire for the dead but we no longer find a man’s sexual desire for another man to be abhorrent. No … instead we talk about sympathy and understanding and we advertise how noble and Christian we are by placing such men in the pulpit.

The pro celibate sodomites in the pulpit contingency now shout about Grace taking away guilt and shame without realizing that instead what we’ve done is we’ve covered our ongoing guilt and shame with the sinful fig-leaf of guilt justification calling it “grace.” When/if Christ – gracefully- removes our heart of stone; we realize how disgusting the natural man is in our Creator’s eyes … and homosexual lust becomes anathema to the heart of flesh. This is not to say that besetting sins instantly go away. It is to say that one never makes peace with their besetting sin. When a Christian goes around saying “I am gay and will never be other” it strikes me that one has made peace with their besetting sin.

Next, I wonder how long it will take “the pro celibate sodomite in the pulpit crowd” to go from saying, “It’s alright — he’s celibate,” to next saying… “It’s alright — he’s a strictly “gay” monogamist.” My money is on that next half step happening very quickly.

I don’t know what the PCA will do in a few weeks on this subject. In some sense, it really doesn’t matter if only because just the fact that the PCA is considering this goes a long way toward suggesting this battle is already lost in the PCA. I do know that God has promised that neither the gates of Hell nor by extension the gates of the soft pink celibate homosexual bathhouses will prevail. I do know that someday Greg Johnson — and our whole culture — will be delivered from the necessity of even having to have this conversation.

I look forward to that day. I’m sure Greg does as well.

One more word on this matter. I have viewed Johnson’s 5-minute presentation to the last PCA General Assembly on this/his issue several times. One might call it an apologetic for his position. One thing that is easily noticed is that Greg here is telling his story. The apologetic here is one that pulls on heartstrings and delivered in such a way to win sympathy.  Johnson, in this appeal, is very much saying when the matter is reduced to its essence… “Please feel sorry for me. I’ve been a victim all my life. As Christians, it is your job to feel sorry for people who have had a hard life.” After listening to Johnson one comes away thinking  … “If I don’t vote to sustain Johnson and his cause I am a hard-hearted blaggard. ” However the PCA has to realize that sympathy towards Johnson is a lack of sympathy towards God and His truth and it is a lack of sympathy towards the people of God.

Do Cultural Marxists Have A Plan To Rebuild?

“The family and civil society are preconditions of the state;… [which] emerges from the masses as they exist as members of the family and of civil society;” for “the social structures and the State always arise from the life-process of the individual.”

Karl Marx

Keep in mind that the goal of Marxism is the elimination of the State. If that is so, the State cannot be eliminated until the family is eliminated. This explains why our State is so hostile to the family.

Now, the question arises…. We know that historical Marxism naively believed there would eventually be no need for a State, but what of modern-day cultural Marxism? Does the Frankfurt School still desire the withering away of the State?

The best way to answer that I think is to recognize that the Cultural Marxists are Nihilists and have no plans beyond destroying all that they can. There is an ancient belief that I believe they accept and that is that out of chaos order comes. You see this belief in Evolutionary theory. It is posited that Evolution moves from chaos to order. So I believe the Cultural Marxists will provide the chaos via ongoing destruction of all Western Institutions and then will let order arise on its own. Alternately, once the destruction has descended it could be the case that only then will the Cultural Marxists start thinking about rebuilding.

Mark Chambers is helpful here by observing that;

Destruction is all part of the great reset plan of the oligarchy to “build back better.” But they can build nothing for they are servants of Satan and Satan comes to steal, kill and destroy. The men of the oligarchy are delusional and quite insane. They believe themselves to be gods and intend to enthrone themselves. But their master hates mankind for man is the image of God and he (Satan), knowing his eventual and inevitable destruction, is bent on doing the only thing he can do and that is to attempt to destroy everything that reeks of that divine image including those who serve him as useful idiots. There are really only two principles involved in everything that occurs–light and darkness, i.e. life and death. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

The fruit of apostasy is death and darkness. There is, I fear a great darkness on the horizon. The night of punishment will come before the day dawns. Dear God strengthen those who are in Christ that they may stay well lit when the darkness arrives.