R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology) – Page 5

The Linkage Between Gramscian Cultural Marxism & R2K

“Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity. … In the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.”

Antonio Gramsci

And per the professoriate at Westminster-Cal what does R2K Christianity, as taught from the pulpit, have to say about Gramsci’s socialism? Well, the answer is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because for the minister to speak from the pulpit about such a subject would be an example of a minister “getting out of his lane.” Indeed, R2K teaches that it is wrong (sin) for the minister to speak on such a subject as Cultural Marxism from the pulpit. R2K reasoning says, “Ministers are experts on the Gospel. They are not experts on philosophy, or culture, or Marxism. Therefore they should not spend their time speaking on something they know very little about. These are subjects for the common realm. Ministers are in the grace realm and should concentrate on that realm.”

Don’t you see how wicked R2K is? It is working hand and glove to bring down Western Civilization. If ministers won’t speak out against R2K and other associated cultural ills that stem from Cultural Marxism, as from the pulpit, then the church is going to become completely and overwhelmingly irrelevant. Cultural Marxism is the trojan horse dedicated to destroying the West and R2K is essentially saying, by silencing the mouths of clergy, “bring that Trojan Horse on into our churches and into our civilization boys.”

It is hard to determine which is more wicked…. R2K or Cultural Marxism.

This is why I hate R2K.

Religion is an Inescapable Category; Because of that Pluralism is a Myth

“Yet, if the Two Kingdoms doctrine (dual-fold kingdom) is biblical (and that’s where my leanings are in this debate), it would seem that we might have to acknowledge that the self-avowed Satanist has a point when he says:

‘Feucht is openly a theocrat who courts the attention of politicians and seeks to proselytize through his performances,’ Greaves said. ‘He has his opinions, and we have ours, but one thing the government can not do is preference his viewpoint over ours by giving him exclusive access to perform a concert on the Capitol grounds. That stage is every bit as much ours as it is his, so, in the name of pluralism and religious liberty, there are some state capitols that are likely soon to be hosting Satanic Planet shows.’

Comment left on R. Scott Clark blog

I unwind this comment because this is, in many respects, the essence of what the R2K ‘can’t shoot straight’ gang is teaching.

The key here is the statement ‘but one thing the government can not do is preference his (the Christian’s) viewpoint over ours, (the Satanists)’ as combined with the invoking of the classical liberal’s sacrosanct principle of ‘pluralism and religious liberty.’ The reason that this is key is because the minute the government begins to not preference religious viewpoints they (‘the government’) at that very minute have violated the sacrosanct principle of ‘pluralism and religious liberty’ because the government at that point is preferencing the religious viewpoint of somebody somewhere that insists that pluralism as a religious viewpoints is his religious viewpoint that should be preferred by the government and so forced on everyone else. Indeed when any government prefers the religious viewpoint that they as the government should not preference Christianity over pagan religions they have at that very moment preferred a religious viewpoint of somebody else’s over my religious viewpoint that Christianity should be preferred as the religious viewpoint over all other religious viewpoints.

Religion is an inescapable category and because of that pluralism is a myth.

Elsewhere Clark writes,

“The secular is not our enemy. It is our friend.“

Dr. R. Scott Clark
America’s Reformed Court Jester

The word “secular” falls so easily off of people’s lips, but we must ask… ‘what is it?’

Is it the realm where no religious views are welcome thus keeping those realms clean from endorsing any one faith or is it the realm where all religious views are welcome thus keeping those realms clean from endorsing any one faith?

If it is the first of those two is it really possible to have a common realm that is clean of all faith? If it is the second of those two isn’t it the case that the faith that has been endorsed for the common realm is any faith that allows all other faiths and so a version of polytheism?

The secular is neither our friend nor our enemy because there is no such thing as “the secular.” It is a myth made up by those who are drunk with enlightenment categories. There is in now way that any realm can be faith free. No such thing as a realm that can be “all faiths” because then the faiths that insist that their faith alone is the true faith are not allowed. Those faiths must give way to the faith of “all faiths.”

R. Scott Clark is not a wise man who is really just a representative of the Enlightenment project desiring to reinterpret Reformed Christianity through the ideological lens of Anabaptist liberalism.

Clark and all his R2K ilk are enemies of the Church of Christ.

Reformed Confessions Disagree With R. Scott Clark’s Assertions Regarding Theocracy

“All orthodox Christians affirm that God’s moral law is enduring and binding to all people—to deny that is antinomianism. What is at stake here is the magistrate’s role in enforcing that moral law. The framers of the Statement have a plan, to which we have not yet arrived, but it entails some enforcement of the first table, and thus is theocratic.”

R. Scott Clark
Sub-Christian Nationalism? (Part 4)

So, what if it is theocratic? The Reformed Confessions repeatedly call for enforcement of the 1st table and also are hopelessly theocratic. Here is the 2nd Helvetic Confession as just one example of a Reformed Theocratic Confession;

“THE DUTY OF THE MAGISTRATE. The chief duty of the magistrate is to

secure and preserve peace and public tranquility. Doubtless he will never do this more successfully than when he is truly God-fearing and religious; that is to say, when, according to the example of the most holy kings and princes of the people of the Lord, he promotes the preaching of the truth and sincere faith, roots out lies and all superstition, together with all impiety and idolatry, and defends the Church of God. We certainly teach that the care of religion belongs especially to the holy magistrate.

Let him, therefore, hold the Word of God in his hands, and take care

lest anything contrary to it is taught. Likewise let him govern the people entrusted to him by God with good laws made according to the Word of God, and let him keep them in discipline, duty and obedience. Let him exercise judgment by judging uprightly. Let him not respect any man’s person or accept bribes. Let him protect widows, orphans and the afflicted. Let him punish and even banish criminals, impostors and barbarians. For he does not bear the sword in vain (Rom. 13:4).

Therefore, let him draw this sword of God against all malefactors,

seditious persons, thieves, murderers, oppressors, blasphemers, perjuried persons, and all those whom God has commanded him to punish and even to execute. Let him suppress stubborn heretics (who are truly heretics), who do not cease to blaspheme the majesty of God and to trouble, and even to destroy the Church of God.”

___

“In Bullinger’s ‘Decades,’ he expounds the above argument further. Using the likes of Solomon, Asa, and Josiah, Bullinger argued that the care and ordering of religion does not belong to Bishops alone. Contrary to those who might relegate these examples to the old covenant, Bullinger responds, ‘The men of this opinion ought to prove, that the Lord Jesus and His apostles did translate the care of religion from the magistrate unto Bishops alone: which they shall never be able to do.’

Both the Reformed theologians Francis Turretin and David Dickson followed this line of argumentation from the example of OT kings.”

Cited in Jonathan Beeke’s

Duplex Regnum Christi — FN 30, pg, 74

R2K Speaks For Itself … McAtee Brings out Implications

“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?

Do these people hear themselves?

T. David Gordon? More like T. David Godless

The Symbiotic Relationship Between Cultural Marxism and R2K

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.