Evangelism – Iron Ink

The Preaching of Law, Gospel … 1st & 3rd Use Of The Law In Preaching

“How were the ten commandments given on Mt. Sinai? not by bare exactions of duty, but fronted with the Gospel, to be believed in the first place; ‘I am the Lord thy God,’ etc.’

Thomas Boston
The Crook In The Lot – p. 60

The Ten commandments, in their original context, were not given in terms of the 1st use of the law but rather in terms of the third use of the law. For the Christian, preaching should be Gospel, Law (3rd use), Gospel. For the Christ hater preaching should be Law (1st use), Gospel.

The first use of the law (Law – Gospel preaching) has the purpose of illuminating the sinfulness of man’s sin. It is all demand and no relief. It is Pilgrim, in “Pilgrim’s Progress” being bludgeoned to the ground even after appeals for mercy. The first use of the law knows no mercy disconnected to Jesus Christ’s finished work. The first use of the law’s work is to turn a light on the sinfulness of sin in fallen man. The first use of the law finds the law as a rigid schoolmaster which has the purpose of driving the sinner to Christ for relief.

Augustine wrote on this matter;

“The law orders, that we, after attempting to do what is ordered, and so feeling our weakness under the law, may learn to implore the help of grace”

For the Christian, however, he is reminded of God’s favor upon Him in providing escape from God’s wrath because of Jesus Christ, before He is reminded of God’s standard and then is reminded again, after the preaching of the third use of the law, of God’s graciousness towards Him for both the law that instructs in what is pleasing to God and beneficial to us and for God’s grace that reminds us that though we fall short in walking in full obedience to God’s law, God, for the sake of Christ’s Cross work, lovingly owns us as His people. Preaching ends with the Gospel because the Gospel tells the Christian that “there is therefore now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.”

The third use of the law then is only for those who have closed with Christ and own him as their savior. If the first use of the law says, “There is none righteous, no not one,” the third use of the law says, “This is the way, walk ye in it.” Both the first use and the third use of the law is God’s good to His elect. The first use of the law in driving us to Christ. The third use of the law in giving us the good life.

For the Christ hater, he is reminded of God’s wrath. He is explicitly told that God has no favor for him since he has walked contrary to God’s standard. He is told the only cure for God’s wrath upon him for his disregard of God’s righteous law is to repent, have faith, and flee to Christ who alone can provide shelter for Him in the face of God’s decided opposition (wrath) towards the sinner. Only when the sinner has been given God’s law and awakened by the terror of God’s wrath may the sinner be told of God’s mercy provided in Christ. Only after the sinner has been given God’s law can he be commanded to repent. The hot needle of God’s Law (1st use) must be the tool which pulls through the scarlet thread of redemption found only in Christ.

So … yes, preaching is Law – Gospel. But it is Gospel, Law, Gospel for the believer as we see in the quote above and Law – Gospel for the Christ hater.

Only by the preaching of the first use of the law will men outside of Christ see their danger. Only by the preaching of the third use of the law will Christians learn how to love their sovereign who said; “If you love me keep my commandments.”

Such preaching also has the advantage of steering the Christian away from both the Charybdis of antinomianism and the Scylla of legalism. Antinomianism is defeated because by preaching God’s third use of the law the Christian will not be able to say, along with the Dispensationalists an R2K chaps, “God’s law no longer applies.” Legalism is defeated because by a close preaching of God’s third use of the law the Christian will never think that somehow their behavior is currying and earning God’s favor. Christians will leave the preaching rejoicing in God’s freely given grace.

McAtee Defends Kirk Against An Angry Female Family Member

Like many Americans I have found myself shocked this past week by the murder of Iranyi Zarutska and the assassination of the Christian Charlie Kirk. The violence has been heart rending. Perhaps, however, what has been just as shocking to me is the glee that has been communicated by many unhinged Americans over the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I mean, I knew that these people hated Biblical Christians but I could not have guessed that the hatred was so wide and deep. It has been heart rending to read people exulting in Mr. Kirk’s death.

Even more heart rending was to read a closely related extended family member join in this ghoulish celebration.

Below, find interaction with this family member who thinks she is wise but really is wicked. She has me blocked on social media but another family member actually took the time to send it to me. I take the time to do this because I am concerned that I have other family members I love who are going to be dragged into the wickedness orbit we see this family member spouting.

____

MN writes,

I do think it is dangerous to rejoice in violence. I also think the argument of feeling sad for this because he had a wife and children isn’t good enough. Most evil men have. I have more grief for what this says about our society. About the distractions and divides people in power have put up that have gotten us to this place. People like Charlie Kirk.

So while I am pondering about what to think and how to feel about this. These are some quotes I will ponder:

Bret responds,

First you say that it is dangerous to rejoice in violence and then you turn around and try to justify the rejoicing in violence that is ubiquitous. You write that “feeling sad because he had a wife and children isn’t good enough.” In other words, one has to have more reasons than a widowed wife and orphaned children in order to be justified in being saddened concerning someone’s death.

Second, you make it clear that your sadness is not about Kirk’s death but rather your sadness is the fact that an evil man like Kirk, per your subjective standards, has placed distractions and divides in American society. So, if we are to take your words seriously what you have told us is that it is not the death of Kirk that makes you sad, but rather it was the life of Kirk that made you sad, because, in your subjective opinion, Kirk placed distractions and divides in American society.

Next, we have to ask, what evidence do you have that Kirk was a “evil man?” By what standard are you adjudicating in order to lower your gavel and say “Charlie Kirk was evil?” It certainly isn’t Scripture that is your standard because Kirk was careful to anchor all of his positions in Scripture. So, by your own subjective say so you’re trying to sell Kirk was an evil man? Who really is the evil person here?

MN writes,

Now you turn to quoting Kirk, thinking by doing so you are proving how evil he was. So… let us consider your quotes and your implicit reasoning behind the quotes that you provide proving he was a wicked man;

“It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the 2nd amendment”

~Charlie Kirk

Bret responds,

So, let us join you in pondering this, understanding that you think this quote proves the Kirk is a wicked man;

1.) If you could bring Kirk back to life he would say this again. The man knew the evidence that existed that proclaimed that gun prohibition laws end up serving the purposes of the criminal class. Prohibiting gun only makes it so the law abiding class can’t get weapons. Criminals don’t care if they break the law in order to have weapons. Tell me that you don’t really think that the chap that shot Kirk would not have been able to shoot Kirk if only your precious dumbass anti-gun laws were passed?

Evidence 1 that this family member is just another non-thinking lib-tard.

2.) If we did not have the 2nd amendment no one would be able to possibly fire back when some idiot criminal on a roof is firing at them.

3.) This lib-tard family member HATES the current Trump government but if she can’t get access to weapons how is the left ever going to fight against Trump? Darling, if we take your access to weapons away your ability to defy Trump goes out the window.

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk,

“I think empathy is a made up new age term that does a lot of damage”

Charlie Kirk

Bret responds,

1.) Fortunately for you, you will never have to deal with he burden of having empathy or even sympathy. You’ve made that clear with your hardness of heart against Kirk’s widow and orphans.

2.) Still, I agree with Kirk that empathy does do a lot of damage. What good does it do for someone to sit down and cry with someone crying? Does it fix their problem? Does it reverse their victim status, even if that is legitimate? Or instead does it empower people who only think they are victims to continue to be victims? Does it not only end up reinforcing bad and narcissistic behavior causing the one being empathized with to say … “yeah, I was right all along. People should feel pity for me.”

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk

“The biggest thing is this: more younger women need to get married at a younger age and start having kids. The single woman issue is one of the biggest issues facing a civilization.”

Charlie Kirk

Bret responds,

Just because you’re single, angry, tatted up like a 18th century sailor on the Pequod, while being 25 going on 50 doesn’t mean Kirk is wrong here.

Keep in mind here that Kirk is addressing the issue of civilization. Western Civilization cannot continue unless our birth rate matches or exceeds our death rate. Currently in the West, our birth rate at 1.55 is way below the needed replacement rate of 2.1. In light of this Kirk is absolutely on point.

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk

“Marital subversion” and “undermine their husbands”

Charlie Kirk on women voting differently than their husbands

Bret responds,

Again … how can this be denied? Women voting in contradiction to their husband is marital rebellion and should be treated as rebellion. Of course you find this hateful given your feminism. However, the Scripture is against you as it teaches repeatedly that wives must submit to their husbands.

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk,

“When a man and woman are hooking up and the woman removes consent.
Yeah that’s a murky middle grey area”

Charlie Kirk on rape

Bret responds,

It is murky. A woman teases a man by her consent to foreplay giving all the signals that it is a go and then suddenly says… “I have a headache?” Yeah …. that’s murky.

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk

“Women should try to find their husband before they’re 25”

Charlie Kirk

Bret responds,

Again … this is just common sense. The younger couples get married the more likely they will meld together quicker. The younger women get married the more time they have to have babies. The Christian faith teaches that the main purpose of marriage after bringing to glory to God is to have children. Marrying before 25, is pursuant to that end.

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk

“You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white persons slot to be taken somewhat seriously”

~Charlie Kirk on black women in political roles

Bret responds,

Again … common sense. For example, the only reason Ketanji Brown Jackson was appointed to a Supreme court seat is because she was a black female (who during her testimony before the Senate could not even define herself as a female). Black people, exceptions notwithstanding, are merely affirmative action hires – hired in order to allow the company who hired them not to be hassled by the FEDS.

The only sin Kirk commits here is the sin of noticing.

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk

“I’m sorry, but if I see a black pilot, I’m going to think; oh I hope he’s qualified”

~Charlie Kirk

Bret responds,

Pray you never find yourself crisscrossing the country on jets as flown by minority affirmative action hires. Pretty soon the odds are going to catch up with you.

MN disapprovingly quotes Kirk

“It creates very angry young ladies and bitter young women that then manifests those women into a political party”

~Charlie Kirk on birth control

Psst … get a mirror and look long and hard at it. You are the angry bitter young woman Kirk talked about.

Top Down, Bottom Up, or Inside Out?

Is the Christianization of America more likely to happen from a Spirit-wrought revival of the populace that seems to arise from nowhere? Or from a Christian prince who seems to pop up from nowhere and uses political power to impose his views on the people? Or is some third option most likely?

Rev. Rich Lusk
Question Raised on X

Just to be clear from the outset here. While I do think that Rev. Lusk can be quite insightful from time to time on the whole, since he is one of the worst practitioners of what is now known as “Federal Vision,” I consider him at the very best heterodox and at very his very worse heretical.

However, he asks a good question here that has been bandied about a good bit by folks lately so I thought I would weigh in on the matter.

If we could reduce the question to its essence it amounts to this;

“Will Christian renewal/reformation be top down or bottom up?”

My answer to this question finds me ripping off from the black Marxist Van Jones who was Obama’s Green Jobs Czar at one time. Van Jones likes to talk about “change being top dow, bottom up and inside out.” And honestly, this is a maxim that has been pursued by Marxists for generations — often quite successfully. It’s also been pursued by Christians in history as well. In point of fact I would argue that it is a biblical principle.

So, my answer to Lusk’s query is that it must be all at the same time. At various times I suppose one will lead and the other follow but on the whole I look at history and I see all three happening whenever a nation pivots from its previous historical/theological/worldview antecedents.

I see it, for example, in a book I finished last month on the Spanish Civil War. Both the Nationalists and the “Republicans” were fighting for a renewal/reformation for their nation as understood as coming from their different beginning points. Both sought top down solutions. The Roman Catholic Nationalists had their Franco and others. The Republicans had their Francisco Largo Caballero and others. However, both parties also sought the support of a bottom up constituency and they both fought for hearts and minds (the inside out component).

If you want to go behind that to consider how Charlemagne would use the sword to convert tribes in his orbit of rule one sees again the top down approach being married to a bottom up approach. After these pagan tribes were “converted” Christian missionaries would then swarm over them to knead Christianity into the individual lives of those previously pagan but now, because of Charlemagne’s sword, Christian tribes.

If one reads their Old Testament Scriptures one finds that both Reformation and Deformation come and go with the coming and going of Righteous or Un-Righteous Kings leading the way. The OT Scriptures indeed seem to support more the idea that Reformation and Deformation come from a top down matrix.

Part of the problem behind people accepting that Reformation could come down in a force manner as being led by a Christian Prince is the fact that the American mind is so infected with the Democratic mindset. We want to insist that Reformation will only come as a bottom up “Spirit led” revival. Certainly, with God all things are possible, but consider that God marries means to ends and currently the means that would lead to an end of a “Spirit led” revival are not present. There is very little proclamation of the whole counsel of God in pulpits today in even putative conservative churches. The enemy has completely captured the places where the most intense catechism occurs; the Government schools and the Universities, as well the media industry (entertainment and “news”) as well as most of the Churches in the West today. Then there is the fact that the publishing houses are almost all captured territory as well as the gaming industry. In light of that could bottom up Spirit led revival still happen? Sure … because God is sovereign all things are possible. However, when we look at history, history suggests that a bottom up Spirit led revival is not going to happen apart from a movement that is also top down and inside out.

And most pietistic Christians don’t want to hear that. They would prefer to think that God always works His ends without means that He Himself has raised up. A Christian magistrate has often been the top down means God uses to prompt bottom up Spirit led revival.

From The Mailbag — Randy Watkins asks; “Do You Even Understand The Gospel”

Randy Watkins, (who I don’t know from Adam) left a comment on Iron Ink in response to one of my posts on Kinism. The comment was so good I thought I would turn it into a short post. Randy wrote asking;

“My question would be – do you even understand the Gospel? Do you even know Jesus? Kinism is nothing but pseudo-sterilized racism.”

Thank you Randy for these questions. Let’s take them one by one.

First, I do understand the Gospel. The Gospel is announcement of the good news that Jesus Christ, being the long promised Messiah, came to live, die, resurrect, ascend and sit in session at the right hand of God to vindicate God’s name and to provide redemption for all who call upon the name of the Lord. The Gospel teaches, Randy, that Christ can do this because he was the penal substitutionary atonement who provided satisfaction, by the spilling of His blood, in the place of sinners who deserved God’s wrath for committing the sin(s) of rebellion against a thrice Holy God. In and by His death Christ turned away the wrath of God (propitiation) by taking away our sins (expiation) so that men could have peace with God. In this sacrifice Christ pays the ransom price required for sin committed by sinners and in doing so is the means of our reconciliation. The Gospel teaches that the elect have the righteousness of Christ imputed (put to their account) to them while their sins are imputed to Christ. In light of this finished work of Christ for the elect God commands all men (regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion) to repent and so be united to Christ and numbered among the people of God. This Gospel pronouncement is to go out to every tribe, tongue, and nation, in their tribes, tongues, and nations.

As to your second question, by God’s grace alone I have been knowing Jesus now for over 60 years. Jesus means “Jehovah is salvation,” and knowing Jesus means knowing Him as Prophet, Priest, and King sent by God to speak for God, to be the Priest who offered up Himself as the sacrifice for sins, and to rule as God’s mediatorial King in all matters. Further, Jesus was and is the living incarnation of God’s law. Jesus, as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, remains a Judahite and son of David even now and has gathered to Himself a church that is characterized as a confederated church where each national Church together comprises the one people of God. The fact that Jesus has no other Church except a confederated church comprised of different National churches is explicitly taught in Revelation 21

²²But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. ²³The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine ^[l]in it, for the ^[m]glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. ²⁴And the nations^[n]of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor ^[o]into it. ²⁵Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). ²⁶And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into ^[p]it.

Finally, Randy, you say that “Kinism is nothing but pseudo-sterilized racism.” I’m sure in a Cultural Marxist worldview that is an insult. However, I don’t live in a Cultural Marxist worldview. To be honest… racism, pseudo-sterilized or otherwise, really has no meaning and is just a pejorative intended to end the conversation. Randy, the word “racism” means everything and so means nothing. Water off of a duck’s back my friend.

May God bless you and keep you Randy Watkins.

On The Virtue Of Forced Conversions

“They open their breasts, while they are alive, and take out the hearts and entrails, and burn the said entrails and hearts before the idols, offering that smoke in sacrifice to them”

Hernan Cortes
Writing of the Aztecs

One bromide that those who oppose Christian Nationalism routinely reach for is the horror of the idea that Christian Nationalists would bring in forced conversions. I want to go on record as saying I have no problem with forced conversions to Christianity as long as we understand what we mean by the phrase “forced conversions.”

There are two ways to look at conversion. On a societal / cultural level when dealing with peoples like the Aztecs mentioned in the opening quote then forced conversion is the only option for a compassionate and God fearing people. Forced conversion at this level should be seen as conversion in an objective sense. This kind of conversion is the bringing in of a Christian law order by the sword that would force a previously wicked people to live under the terms of God’s law on a societal basis. Force would be used to bring in order and righteousness with God’s law in its political use leading the way. In the Aztec example above, sacrifices to the gods would end, laws against sundry sexual perversion would be enforced upon pain of death, property rights would be recognized and people forced to attend worship services.

Now, there can be no doubt whatsoever that most of the people that are being forced into this kind of conversion to Christian social dogmas and order would be converted in a subjective sense of the Holy Spirit taking from them a heart of stone and giving them a heart of flesh but they would be converted in the sense that publicly they would not longer have a social order based on false gods. That kind of conversion would be a positive good think even if there was a need for heart conversion that would be betters still.

This kind of forced conversion by the sword would also have the advantage of preparing the social order for the presence of the Gospel being proclaimed. For example, those people freed by Cortez from the gods of the Aztecs would clearly be more open to owning a Gospel proclamation. Likewise Missionaries would have a more free opportunity to set forth the glories of Christ to a people subjugated by the Christian sword. Those Missionaries would not find their own lives in jeopardy for merely bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to a people long under the tyranny of false gods.

The ideal in forced conversions would be that the change that arrived in a massive social order change brought by the sword would open up opportunities for what we are calling “subjective conversions.” So, objectively the social order is forced to convert to Christ in the sense that the old gods are not allowed to be served, a new law order system is implemented, and the macro structures of society are changed thus making room for subjective conversions wherein people are now gladly forced to convert by the Holy Spirit’s irresistible work of regeneration.

So, mark me down as someone who has no problems with “forced conversions.” Indeed, it is my prayer that forced conversion would be brought to our formerly Christian culture. I would be delighted if Abortion clinics were forced to close down because of a policy of forced conversions. I would be delighted if idols to false gods would not be set up in our capitals across the nation because of forced conversion. I would revel in the Lord’s Day being reconstituted consistent with Blue Laws by means of forced conversion. I would rejoice if because of forced conversion a law order was established that made criminal tattooing, piercing, aborting, and soliciting for Prostitution. Now, even if that happened here I still would understand that the heart is desperately wicked beyond all things and that as such the heart would have to be reached in a way that the sword could not accomplish but that reality doesn’t make the idea of “forced conversions” a bad idea.

Also, we should state that all law orders are examples of forced conversions. There are many things our current State does that yield routine forced conversion to idol gods. The people who decry the possibility of Christianity using the sword for conversion don’t mind the sword being used to convert the majority of America’s children to a false religion via the requirements of the law for the education of children. Christians are forced, at the point of a sword, to pay taxes for all kinds of things that belong to the bailiwick of false gods that are forcefully imposed upon this nation and work to keep it worshiping false gods.

Finally, it seems to be the case that only Christians have a problem with forced conversions. This may be due to the incredible pietistic influence on the Christian faith. Christians in the West today are not realistic as to the way the world works. Christians are scared to death of the idea of using power in a righteous way. Indeed, Christians tend to think that Christians having and using power is automatically an evil thing. Now, to be sure, Christians having and using power can be an evil thing but it is not necessarily an evil thing and Christians should once again contemplate the honor to Christ it might be to wield power in a Christ like fashion.

The idea of converting by the sword means that you make the adherents of the false gods be martyrs to their false gods. It is not automatically virtuous to be the only ones ever dying for their God, as Christians seem to think.

If Charlemagne and Cromwell had no problem conquering by the sword than neither do I.