Things That Don’t Have Anything To Do With The Kingdom Of God — A Suggested Litnany Reading For Morning Worship

State sanctioned Baby killing?

Nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. The Church must be silent.

State sanctioned Jew killing in the past?

Nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. The Church must be silent.

Legislatively pursued destruction of the Christian Family?

Nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. The Church must be silent.

Government Education on the basis of a hostile anti-Christ presuppositional base?

Nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. The Church must be silent

State taking up God’s prerogatives as seen in policy after policy decision, thus revealing that it believes that it is God walking on the earth?

Nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. The Church must be silent.

Destruction of what is left of Christedom?

Nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. The Church must be silent.

More than that Christians should be for this destruction of Christendom since pluralism is God’s will for us.

Cloning and Embryonic stem cell research?

Nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. The Church must be silent.

Computer chips implanted in the brain to alter our thinking and personalities?

Nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. The Church must be silent.

Mood altering drugs in order to alter our thinking and personalities?

Nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. The Church must be silent.

Aggressive pursuit of unjust war resulting in the premeditated deaths of thousands of civilians?

Nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. The Church must be silent.

Oh Sovereign God, who has bidden us to keep our mouths shut in the common realm except as individuals, and who has given us no clear guidance from thy most Holy Word on these matters, continue to give us natural law wisdom with which to confound those who believe not in you nor in natural law, and who believing that you are dead likewise believe all ideas of objective truth are dead. Grant us grace O Sovereign and wise God to continue to be divided on these common realm issues and bless us to put aside our divisions on common realm matters when we come in this sanctuary to hear you speak on those matters that really concern you. Thank you that you have saved us with a grace that keeps us from bringing that salvation into the common realm.

In the name of the great King Jesus we pray — The name of Him who is Lord over Heaven and Earth but Lord in the common realm in a different way.


More R2Kt Virus From The Macarthur Conference

Question & Answer format,

Question — Presumably from a Pastor

Q. — “How do I shepherd my people with respect to the upcoming presidential election, especially with no clearly pro-life candidate?

Answer — From John Macarthur

A. — “My answer is it has nothing to do with the kingdom of God!” He (Macarthur) then made some deprecatory quips about Jimmy Carter taking the office of president too seriously [sorry, past my historical familiarity to go into detail — Stenographer]. “In all seriousness, you do what your conscience tells you to do. But one thing: if you’re going to have your brain operated on, you might like to have a Christian. But I’d rather have someone in there who knew what a brain was, and had done it before. This subject of presidential politics, really, though, is really nowhere on my priority list. I voted for Huckabee in the primary, that was my best shot based on other’s thoughts; but the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world are entirely separate entities. I think we’re experiencing Romans 1 wrath in the church (I have a message on Focus on the Family about this) right now. When God turns a nation over, there’s a sexual revolution, then a homosexual revolution, then the minds stop working… and you vote those realities into law. I’m not surprised this nation has the kind of interest in the kind of leaders it has. But to clarify, I’m not indifferent: whenever I can actively vote for something that is righteous I do that.

You can find it on Evers’s blog here:

1.) Nothing to do with the Kingdom of God?

First off all this does have a great deal to do with the Kingdom of God if only because Kingdom of God people are going to be voting in this election. If this has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God, or for that matter if anything has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God then why should the Kingdom of God people have anything to do with it. Shouldn’t we only have to do with those things that do have something that explicitly has something to do with the Kingdom of God?

What is going on here once again is the compartmentalization between God’s Kingdom which is some kind of gnostic ethereal abstract spiritual thing and the living that goes on in every other realm except the Church which belong to the carnal (Kingdoms of this world) realms. This distinction between the carnal realm and the spiritual realm (Kingdom of God vs. Kingdoms of the World) can never be overcome except for a eucatastrophic in-breaking by Jesus in His second advent. This completely denies the whole idea of the Kingdom of heaven being like a mustard seed. This completely denies that age to come in the coming of Jesus has invaded this present evil age with the intent that the Kingdoms of this world shall be the Kingdoms of our God. If this is true why should we pray “thy Kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven?” Why should we pray for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven if what happens on earth has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God? The Scripture refers to the magistrate as being “God’s minister” and in our system the people are the magistrate over the magistrate which means the people are God’s ministers and no more so then when they are voting. Are we to believe that as God ministers we should not look to the Scriptures for insight and wisdom on how to exercise the office of minister in a Kingdom of God fashion?

Certainly those who are running for President and who have not looked to Christ and so who are not looking to God’s law-word for wisdom have nothing to do with the Kingdom of God but Christians who belong to Christ are of the Kingdom of God and when they vote they ought to bring the Kingdom of God to bear on the Kingdoms of this World.

2.) Jimmy Carter was an anti-Christ and his presidency only proves that Biblical Christians are gullible.

3.) This thinking suggests that there is no conflict between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent in carnal realms. In those realms the seed of the serpent is and always will be predominant. This sure sounds like ana-baptist thinking to me. I expect it from the Baptist Macarthur. I don’t expect it in the other quarters where it seeps from.

4.) Do what your conscience does?

Who is the Lord of the Conscience? Is the conscience an independent realm that can become a standard over God’s Law-Word? This is common realm anti-nomianism pure and simple. Does God’s Law-Word have nothing to say to his people for their consideration as they determine who they should cast God’s vote for?

5.) Brain Surgery

This is sophistry. Sure I’d prefer a Hindu Brain surgeon to a Christian anti-nomian minister doing my Brain surgery but all things being equal I’d prefer even more a Christian Brain surgeon doing my brain surgery. (Personal note — I will not go to a doctor who is Muslim, Hindu, or Buddahist for anything serious if I can help it since I believe Worldview makes a difference in medicine.) If Macarthur’s point is that he would prefer a wise turk to a stupid Christian as President, well, who wouldn’t, but Christians have the opportunity in this election cycle to vote for a wise Christian for president. Macarthur is using Nimrod logic.

6.) Huckabee is a Statist. The fact that Macarthur voted for him based on other people’s thoughts indicate that the ‘other people’ who advised him are not thinking with a Christian Worldview.

7.)Then he ends by saying he is not indifferent and votes for righteousness when he can, which contradicts everything he just said. How does he determine righteousness except by God’s Law-Word? And if all of this has nothing to do with the Kingdom of God how could he even speak in categories of righteousness or unrighteousness?

This guy is supposed to be a leading light in Evangelicalism?

God help us.

The vapidity of this Macarthur statement is just mind numbing.

The Doctor Makes A Housecall — Chatting w/ Dr. R. Scott Clark

The esteemed Dr. R. Scott has decided to visit IronInk and leave commentary. It should be immediately noted how thrilled I am with the venerable Doctor’s visitation. It is not often that a gentleman of such stature visits humble environs such as IronInk and so we are pleased to welcome him to our domicile and hope that he will think himself free to come again with his friends for future visits. We all have a great opportunity to learn in this exchange.

Below I interact with some of his gracious comments. We still do not agree but I trust that the readers will find our disagreements anything but disagreeable.

”There’s no incipient dualism in the two-kingdoms ethic, it’s full-blooded, self-conscious dualism! It’s the same sort of dualism one finds in the apostle Paul and our Lord Jesus who distinguished between “this age” and “the age to come” and the “the kingdoms of this world” and “the kingdom of God.” Not all dualisms are of the Platonic/Ontic sort. There is a proper, Christian body/soul dualism. That’s the same thing as a spirit-matter dualism — which is sub-Christian because it denies the goodness of created matter.”

First, in order to clear things up I think Dr. R. Scott Clark meant to have a negation between the word “That’s” and the word “the” in the last sentence. I think it is supposed to read, “That’s not the same thing as a spirit-matter dualism…” Still, it is possible that it was some kind of Freudian slip and that Dr. R. Scott Clark spoke the truth that what he is advocating is indeed “the same thing as a spirit-matter dualism – which is sub-Christian because it denies the goodness of created matter.”

Second, I find no full blooded self-conscious dualism at all in the Apostle Paul or in our mutual Lord Jesus. When Jesus distinguished between “this age” and “the age to come” he wasn’t positing two realities that were hermetically sealed off from one another. Dr. R. Scott Clark seems to be positing the Reformed anti-thesis between “This age” and “The age to come” as if the transforming of this “present wicked age” by the “age to come” is impossible. The evidence that the “age to come” is present in this present wicked age is found in passages like Colossian 1:13-14 where the Colossians are told that “they have been delivered from the power of darkness and conveyed into the Kingdom of the Son of God’s Love.” Here is a passage that reveals that even now believers are living in the “age to come.”

With the Death, Resurrection, Ascension and Session of Jesus the “age to come” has arrived. Now, to be sure, there remains a “not yet” component to the “nowness” of the “age to come,” but certainly there can be no thinking that the “age to come” is hermetically sealed off from believers to some future point and I see no reasoning in the Scriptures that lead us to believe that the “age to come” is only located in the Church. Such thinking would reveal a under-realized eschatology.

Christ has brought the “age to come” and has placed us in it. By the proclamation of the Gospel by Christ’s “age to come” people the Gospel goes triumphantly forward with the result that the present “age to come” continues to overcome “this present evil age.” With the death of Jesus the strong man who is the king of “this present evil age” as been bound and Jesus is now, through the obedience of His people, pillaging the belongings of the strong man so that eventually the Kingdoms of this world which already belong to Christ shall become the Kingdoms of our Christ. We know this will happen because all authority has been given to King Christ in heaven and earth and He has instructed us to pray that “His Kingdom come and His (“age to come”) will be done on earth (not just in the Church) as it is in heaven.”

Look, God’s people have been saved with an “age to come” salvation. That “age to come” salvation affects all of our living in this present wicked age. This is why we can be told to take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ. “Age to come” people think different thoughts then people who belong to this “present wicked age,” because they begin and end all of their thinking in all areas of life with the God of the Bible. Scripture teaches God’s “age to come” people are to be transformed by the renewing of their minds. Are we to believe that the call to be transformed is somehow limited to being transformed every place except the public square which is to remain part of “this present wicked age” until the hermetically sealed off “age to come” arrives?

Second, I can’t agree with Dr. R. Scott Clark about the body-soul dualism. Certainly, I agree that we have to make a important and necessary distinction between body-soul but to say that a dualism exists between body and soul is a bridge to far. I prefer to speak of the body-soul being part of a modified uni-chotomy. This is an important disagreement to note for the difference between insisting that a body-soul dualism exists and insisting that man is a modified unichotomy is a difference that finds itself expressing itself in our differences between the relations of “this present evil age” and “the age to come.” That can be seen in what has been already advanced. I am arguing for a distinction between “this present age” and “age to come” seeing that we need to speak of a modified unity here that allows for clear distinctions without involving ourselves in the error of collapsing the two into one another. Dr. R. Scott Clark seems to be arguing for a hard and fast dualism between “this present age” and “the age to come,” thus not allowing for any eschatological perichoresis between the two.

”As to individuals v the church and social transformation. As far as I am concerned Christians as private persons may form non-ecclesiastical societies to achieve any number of admirable ends. The church as the visible, institutional society, however, instituted by Christ has three marks: the pure preaching of the gospel, the pure administration of the sacraments, and the administration of church discipline.”

First, I quite agree with the three marks. I would say that under the first mark is included the preaching of God’s whole counsel which would include speaking to cultural issues where God’s work speaks to those cultural issues. So, we have agreement here.

Second, I also agree about non-ecclesiastical societies. What I don’t agree on is that the Church has no role to speak when non-ecclesiastical societies war with one another. Let us say that there is a non-ecclesiastical society formed to advance the cause of “Christian” socialism in our country. Another non-ecclesiastical society organizes to advance the cause of some form of “Christian” Fascism in our country. Now the Church ought to be able to be a voice that authoritatively shows, from the Scriptures, why both are wrong, going on to speak to what God’s word has declared about Biblical economics and Biblical government.

Christ came to save all of man – body and soul – and to think that preaching only applies to man’s soul or to his personal ethic misses the wholeness of the salvation that Christ came to bring.

”There’s no reason why the church as such must be engaged in social transformation any more than may result in the preaching of the holy gospel. The outcome of the preaching of the gospel and the administration of sacraments and discipline belongs to the Spirit and to most a-millennialists there is no promise of massive social/cultural transformation. We may be wrong. If so, praise God. The major issue is to see that the church as such is focused on those three things for which she has a explicit commission.”

Again, I quite agree. Our difference lies in what we understand to be “explicitly commissioned.” Jesus commissioned his royal courtiers to teach the peoples to “observe all things wherein I have commanded you.” I take the “all things” to be far broader than you take the “all things.” This is especially so when you consider that Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets. As you know these were men who were consumed with what justice looked like in the public square. These were men who longed to see social / cultural transformation. It is my conviction that Scriptures teach that Jesus came to bring an “age to come” salvation that works like leaven to bring about social and cultural transformation in this present evil age.

”One more time: Christians as private persons, not necessarily only as individuals, may form societies to achieve desirable ends. They ought, however, not to enlist the visible church as an entity to accomplish anything other than that required by the Lord.”

I offer my thanks to Dr. R. Scott Clark for re-articulating his basic convictions. As I am a person who is kind of slow, it is important for smart people to repeat themselves to me so I can catch what they are saying. Still, even after hearing this basic commitment re-articulated I can not agree with it.

Even if you put people into non-ecclesiastical societies it does not solve the problem of creating an ‘each man (or non-ecclesiastical society) doing what is right in their own eyes. In your arrangement there remains no “Thus Saith The Lord” in order to adjudicate between competing non-ecclesiastical societies. All we are left with is opinions. Should homosexual marriage be allowed? The non-ecclesiastical society formed by soon to be Dr. Lee Irons and his lovely wife Misty say’s “yes.” The non-ecclesiastical society formed by Mark Chambers says “no.” Who is to decide? By your reasoning there is no answer that can be considered absolute. By your reasoning the Church is forbidden to speak to that issue and a host of others. By your reasoning we are left adrift on the sea of Natural law subjectivism.

And the really ironic thing Bob is the more the Church refuses to speak to what God’s word clearly speaks to the more the culture insists that we should keep our mouths shut about everything. The political conversation today, as seen again in the latest dust-up between B. Hussein Obama and Dr. James Dobson reduces to the ability to be able to authoritatively say whether or not there is a right and wrong that all people must adhere to and your advice is that the Church can’t speak to that question because it is political.

That may sell in Escondido Dr. R. Scott Clark, but it isn’t going to get off the ground in these parts.

D. G. Hart — “The Church Shall Be Silent”

“The political passivism implicit in Machen’s understanding of the church, however, must not be rendered a justification for Christian escapism (something charged against the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms also). Machen himself was active in politics precisely because he knew the church should not be. Christians who look to the church to engage in political reforms invariably fail to explore other means by which they as citizens, along with believers and nonbelievers, may engage in the political process. In other words, to say the church has no responsibility for politics is very different from describing what duties Christians themselves have as citizens and neighbors. As they are called, Christians have a duty to seek the welfare of the city (Jer. 29:7). What Machen’s example teaches is that Christians have no right to expect the church as a corporate body to seek the city’s welfare other than through the spiritual means of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ.”

D. G. Hart
The Difference Between Christians & The Church
Modern Reformation — 2004

Dr. D. G. Hart is another gentleman who is a carrier of the R2Kt virus. Dr. Hart has written a whole book on the subject entitled, “A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State.”

Like D. R. Scott Clark, Dr. D. G. Hart is a intelligent man until he gets on this subject. I have read several of his books with great profit, just as I have read several articles by Dr. R. Scott Clark with profit. However, all that is beneficent in what they write is largely negated by their work on this subject.

Take Hart’s quote above. In the quote he notes that individual Christians can work and proclaim in the “common realm” while the Church cannot. Having pointed this out before the problem with this is that it results in a “each man doing what is right in his own eyes.”

Let’s take the last time this approach was pursued on a large scale in 1930’s Germany. According to Hart’s theory individual Christians should have spoken out against National Socialism. The problem here though is that Hart’s theory also countenances individual Christians speaking out in favor of National Socialism or Communism or any number of other Biblically judged aberrant systems. In Hart’s theory there is no place that any individual Christian can hear an authoritative “Thus Saith The Lord,” since the Scriptures don’t speak to these kinds of issues and so each individual Christian is free to do what is right in their own eyes. And so, in a conversation touching the 1930’s Hart, Clark and other R2Kt infected people, even now, if they are consistent, cannot say it was wrong, according to God’s Word, for individual Christians to support National Socialism or Communism in post WWI Germany. They might be able to say that as individual Christians they believe it was wrong, but if another individual Christian came along and said it was right it would remain a matter or “just two opinions,” since God’s word doesn’t speak to these kind of issues.

Now R2Kt types will appeal to the wisdom of Natural Law to serve as an arbiter on the kinds of issues that the Church can’t speak to but as we’ve said before Natural Law is invoked by everybody for everything. Without looking I’d be willing to bet that even some National Socialist theorist in the 1930’s invoked Natural Law to support the Nationalist Socialist regime in 1930’s Germany.

If the R2Kt virus becomes epidemic its hard to guess what the toll will be on the Church and on the culture.

Dualism and the R2Kt virus

“Were this version of Lutheran Theology (the paradigm of R2Kt virus – BLM) taken to its logical conclusion it would deprive the gospel of any intellectual content and the law of any moral content. The biblical narrative and theological reflection on it would not be given any epistemological status to engage secular learning. It would champion a form of Lutheran quietism in the realm of education. Much as German Lutheranism in the 1930’s separated the two kingdoms (government under law separated from Christianity under the gospel) and allowed the Nazi movement to go unchecked by appeal to an intellectual and moral content of the Christian vision, so this approach would allow modern secular learning to go unchallenged by that vision.”

Robert Benne
Quality With Soul: How Six Premier Colleges and Universities Keep Faith w/ Their Religious Traditions — pg. 133

The Two Kingdom theology that informs the R2Kt virus of Westminster West offers no answer for a unified theory of knowledge. Following the implications of R2Kt viral thinking there would be little if any possibility of building University if only for the reason that knowledge that obtains in the realm of grace is not the same kind of knowledge that is obtained in the the common realm. Instead of Universities we are left with Multiversities.

The dualism incipient in R2Kt viral thinking creates two different kinds of knowledge. One kind of knowledge is anchored in right reason. A second kind of knowledge anchored in revelation and faith. But in keeping with classical dualism R2Kt viral thinking offers no answer as to how these two kinds of knowledge can be reconciled. When such a situation obtains resolution must be arrived at in one way or another, if even only in an unofficial or pragmatic sense. The possible resolutions, it seems to me, reduce to two. The first possible option was seen in history when the Church was in the ascendancy. Here the ‘spiritual’ truths triumphed over the truth of reason. When the state has been in the ascendancy the option has been for the truths of reason to triumph over ‘spiritual’ truths.

Of course another consequence of R2Kt viral thinking is that different realms are created where the different knowledges hold sway. The realm that right reason rules is the secular realm. The realm that revelation rules is the gracious realm. This creates another dualism where the former realm is ruled by the age to come and the latter realm is ruled by this present wicked age. This viral way of thinking has the ‘now’ front loaded in the realm of grace with the ‘not yet’ being overwhelmingly predominant in the secular realm. The result of this is not only a dualism between a secular and gracious realm, and a dualism between two different kinds of knowledge but also it largely turns the ‘now, not yet’ into a dualistic program.

R2Kt seeks to resolved this by offering Christ’s Lordship as the means by which unity is found between their dualistic realms. The problem here though is that Christ’s Lordship is dualistically divided between a Lordship that is explicitly revealed (for the realm of grace) and a Lordship that is, at best, only subtly suggested (for the realm of grace). Christ’s own Lordship is thus put into a kind of dualism mode. There clearly is no way whereby these differing forms and expressions of Christ’s Lordship can be reconciled.

Since such a theory cannot work in the real world the effect has been, as Benne notes,that a kind of retreatism prevails. This in turn allows the most vile of cultures to flower.

One can see how it might be possible for R2Kt viral thinking works in a culture largely influenced by Christian categories. I can only see it as being an unmitigated disaster when present in a culture where Christianity is in eclipse.