R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology) – Page 12

Rev. Larry Ball … Of Squirt Guns and Five Alarm Fires

Why Are Wilson’s Children Warriors?

In the above article Rev. Larry Ball gives analysis on the Moscow mood and in the doing of so he makes some observations about some current men on the scene. I think he views most of those he mentions by name as wearing different shades of white hats. I, on the other hand, only see different shades of black and gray.

I make my case below.

I think this article is disastrous. Rev. Larry Ball does not yet understand where the dividing line is. All those he salutes in the 6th and 7th paragraphs are part of the problem, and really are enemies to a full throated Biblical Christianity. They all treat the wound too lightly and each at different points compromise in their own way.

Now, it may be true that here or there they get a matter right and I suppose if one isolates that one or two issues they have right and stick with that on those issues one will be fine. However, if one is talking about a comprehensive and organic Biblical Christianity that is equipped to stem the tide, never mind roll it back, there is not a one of them, in Ball’s list, taken as a whole, that is the answer to our current malaise.

What matters it if you get this or that issue right when you end up giving back what you gained previously by being desperately in error on some other central issue?

Van Til used to use a metaphor about having all the different magnitude of the weaponry of the military pointed in the same direction in order to have maximum effect. These men Ball lists have some of the apologetic weaponry pointed in the right direction but elsewhere in their apologetic they are shooting at those who should be their friends.

Ball is correct that the Reformed faith needs to be providing answers on these cultural issues. Some clearly are not providing them in the least. Others are like Van Til’s “Mr. Gray” (See his article, “Mr. Black, Mr. Gray, and Mr. White”). What we need is more Mr. Whites when it comes to this battle. Ball’s list does not give us any Mr. Whites — nobody who is thinking comprehensively about the issues at had. There are no Rushdoony’s in Ball’s list.

One wonders if there are no Rushdoony’s on Ball’s list, because to be a modern Rushdoony is the kiss of death. Even when RJR was alive the mainstream “Conservative” Reformed establishment wanted very little to do with the man. How much less so must that be now, nearly 23 years after RJR’s call to glory?

Now, I am not idolizing RJR here. No, not at all. I think he was wrong on his dismissal of conspiracy theory. I think his constant optimistic prattling about victory just a few years away on this or that issue (homeschooling, minority revivals,) did not, in the end serve him well. Save for Otto Scott I do not think he surrounded himself with top shelf Lieutenants. However, those errors did not stop him from giving a comprehensive organic answer that, if he had been paid attention to and given heed, would have meant that we would not now be where we currently are in both our church moment and our cultural moment.

S, I don’t expect anybody to get it right always all the time. I don’t expect that. Shoot, I’ve even been known to get important matters wrong. (Hard to believe isn’t it?) However, some of the errors of those who are considered “the good guys” by Ball (Sandlin, Boot, Durbin, to name just a few) just are out to lunch on some pretty serious matters.

I know I am the playing the role of the canary in the mine shaft but I’m telling you if we don’t get the whole issue of race/ethnicity/WOKE correct as our Christian Fathers had it correct (See Achord & Dow’s book, “Who Is My Neighbor”) then being right everyplace is not going to matter. Ethno-Nationalism (Kinism) is the issue of our times. It is to us what Justification was for Luther and Calvin. It is to us what the eternality of Christ was for Athanasius. If all our ships do not sail in the same direction on this one issue we will all be blown out of the water by our enemies even if we are all sailing in the same direction on every other cultural issue.

The problem with the Moscow mood is not what Ball says is the problem. The problem with the Moscow mood is that it’s mood is only a grifter’s affectation. The real mood we need can be located in the troops with Martel @ Tours, or in the Polish Winged Hussar calvary with Sobieski @ Vienna, or in those sailors with Don Juan @ Lepanto, or in those Crusaders with Godfrey of Boullion during the 1st crusade. When we find clergy in the Church with that mood then phone me.

I applaud Rev. Larry Ball for attacking R2K but our attack needs to be broader. Much much broader. Ball treats the wound of God’s people too lightly. He has not understood how badly we are wounded right now.

He has brought a squirt gun to a five alarm fire.

Oh… and has anybody yet refuted all those quotes in the Achord & Dow book?

Dr. Strange and the Multicult of Madness — Part V

“Inside our personal information bubbles, our assumptions, our blind spots, our prejudices aren’t challenged, they are reinforced and naturally, we’re more likely to react negatively to those consuming different facts and opinions – all of which deepens existing racial and religious and cultural divides.”

Barack Obama

Here we return to the final installment critiquing Dr. Alan’s Strange’s excoriating of Christian Nationalism (CN).

I open with the quote above because Strange at the 12:17 mark of his third installment on the subject says much the same thing. I can’t help but find it interesting that a putative conservative Reformed theologian agrees with a Marxist like Obama on critiquing the reading habits of Americans.

1.) It seems that Strange is trying to pry Christian people away from having convictions that he personally doesn’t like and so he says, “read from sources that don’t agree with you.” Now, I don’t have a problem with reading broadly. Indeed, I often read my enemies because in such a way I can more easily disembowel their arguments. However, this isn’t why Strange (or Obama) want you to read outside those who agree with you. Strange wants Christians to read outside of those who agree with them because only in such a way will people be pried away from positions that Strange doesn’t like.

I would encourage people to read broadly but only after they have anchored themselves in a Christian World and life view.

2.) Strange insists that “we have to put politics in its place,” but he does so via his own political jeremiad that insists that everyone salute his politics. Strange’s politics insist that Christians should not prioritize politics. The problem here is that the enemies of Christ has politicized everything. It is the enemies of Christ who have politicized life, sex, and death. As Christians are we not to respond to this pagan politicization by entering into the political sphere by pushing back? The enemies of Christ have taking politics as their theology and by the means of politics they seek to cover the globe with their anti-Christ theology. For Christians, at this time, to put politics in its place the way Strang envisions is to surrender the whole ball of wax. The consequence of Strange’s version of “putting politics in its place” is to be forced back into the catacombs. The consequence of Strange’s version of “putting politics in its place” is the final hegemony of polluted pietism in the place of a muscular Christianity that walks uprightly in the public square. The consequence of Strange’s version of “putting politics in its place” means that Jesus Christ takes a back seat to whatever god or gods is/are running the public square. I submit to you that Strange, however well intended the man may be, is issuing a call to treason against Jesus Christ.

3.) Strange pulls, the now tired claim, that CN is just WOKEism on the right as if ideas of CN or race didn’t long predate the rise of WOKEism. This claim, now made by many, is just idiotic.

4.) Strange makes a typical R2K move by insisting that Christians must return to the “spirituality of the Church,” where spirituality means “surrendering to the anti-Christ forces” in the culture wars. Strange, it seems to me, will only be happy when Christianity is not a force at all in the public square, when Christianity will be restricted to what happens during Worship on Sundays, when Christianity is publicly irrelevant. The man is petrified by the notion that Christianity may become once again militant.

Look, at the end of the day, the Christianity that Dr. Alan Strange is hawking is a different Christianity from the likes of John Knox or Puritan Pulpiteers in colonial American history. It’s not a Christianity in which I am interested. I find it to be cowardly and dishonoring to the Lordship claims of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Strange and the Multicult of Madness — Part IV

Here we continue our series on Dr. Alan Strange’s podcasts concerning the depredations on the idea of Christian Nationalism (CN). I anticipate one more entry in order to finish this series.

Some have complained to me that I labeled Dr. Strange as a man of the left. I can come to no other conclusion about any man, despite their orthodoxy on any number of other subjects, that he is a man of the left when eschewing the idea of the explicit Lordship of Jesus Christ over a nation. Consider, as there is no such thing as neutrality, when one declaims against Christian nationalism the only options that remain is support for a nationalism that is driven by some anti-Christian religion or a internationalism that is driven by anti-Christ religion. (It is not possible for internationalism to be Christian.) Dr. Strange, and the other numberless hordes (Owen Strachan, R. Scott Clark, David Van Drunen, etc.) who are classical liberals are being driven by their Enlightenment faith and so can be considered nothing but “men of the left.” There is more of Robespierre, Danton, and Marat about these “Christian” men then there is Jesus Christ when it comes to their political theory. Hence, this is why I insist that Dr. Alan Strange is a man of the left.

Now to interact with Dr. Strange’s final podcast denigrating of Christian Nationalism;

1.) Strange, first lists his concern about the issue of how Christian Nationalism would imply coercion. This is true. Christian Nationalism would require coercion. Just as we Christians today, in the classical liberal model, are being coerced on any number of fronts to support our current state religion. Christians are being coerced to pay taxes to support the murder of the unborn, the murder of countless peoples in other lands because of our NWO guided military, the continued existence of our anti-Christ government schools and countless other projects. All governments are driven and inspired by a faith/religion vision and all governments in turn coerce people to salute that faith/religion vision. Christian Nationalism would be no different. We would coerce people — not to be Christian (only the Holy Spirit can do that) — but to operate within the confines of a Biblical Worldview and social order.

So, Strange, laments the possibility of coercion in the context of Christian Nationalism yet apparently he is willing not to lift his voice and do something about Christians being coerced to serve the agenda of our current state religion as it serves the gods of humanism. In the final analysis, when it comes to Governments, it is either coerce or be coerced. As Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, I have no problem saying, “Yes, Christian Nationalism would mean coercion.”

2.) Strange next insists that CN wrongly uses Scripture. This is basically a “anti-theonomy” argument. Now I agree with Strange that the Bible does not give us an exhaustive blue print for how social-orders are to be governed today. I do not believe that we should seek to repristinate OT Israel’s social order. However, I strongly disagree with Strange that the Scripture doesn’t speak to issues like proper tax rates (Strange mentions this). So, I agree with Strange that every political/social order issue can not be resolved with a “thus saith the Lord.” However, I disagree with Strange that many many political/social order issues couldn’t be resolved with a “thus saith the Lord.” For example, I do believe we should take the Scripture seriously that talks about taxation, that insists that a man should not dress like a woman, nor a woman like a man, that Magistrates should not have the capability to wage offensive wars, that Magistrates should be required to write out God’s law, etc. etc. etc. Strange’s strongly anti-theonomic position inevitably leads to “each man doing what is right in his own eyes.” It is a recipe for humanism.

3.) Strange, using an illustration for his position, next argues that the Scripture has nothing to say on whether or not the State should provide health care. This is a classic example of Strange being on the left. Scripture clearly denounces theft and the State cannot be involved in providing health care without stealing from the citizenry. State funded health care is anti-Christ and Christians should look with suspicion upon “Christians” who think like Strange. I don’t want to get too deeply in the weeds here but it is the jurisdiction of the family, and not the state to provide health care. Secondly, the prices of health care skyrocket when the state becomes the benefactor for health care. State funded health-care is not Christian.

4.) Strange next compares CN with Socialism and Communism by saying that his CN friends say “well, CN has never worked because it has never been tried by the right people.” Strange notes that is the same kind of logic that the Christian Utopians, Socialists and Communists use. I agree that is terrible logic. CN is never going to bring in Nirvana and that shouldn’t be our expectation. However, contrary to Strange the question isn’t “will CN bring in Shangri-La,” the question is will CN be closer to a God honoring social-order than other political/social-order arrangements that are decidedly anti-Christ? (Understanding that all other political/social-order arrangements that are not CN will be anti-Christ — no neutrality.) The answer there is clearly and unequivocally “yes.” I would rather live with the follies of a Cromwell or Charlemagne or Alfred the Great than the follies of a Stalin, Mao, or Obama.

5.) Strange then agrees with another chap (John Ehrett) who insists that Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s CN sounds more like Nietzsche than it does Christ. I have dissected that critique here;

McAtee Defends Stephen Wolfe Against Ehrett

More Growling & Snarling From Van Drunen’s “Pit Yorkie”

“The TheoRecons are theologians of glory, selling conquest and dominion in this life, before Christ returns. But they cannot square that vision with the eschatology and ethos of the New Testament, and it is to the New Testament, not their vision of glory, that Christians are bound.”

Dr. R. Scott Clark
Van Drunen’s Pit Yorkie

1.) All people everywhere at all times are reconstructionists. One is either reconstructing all of life as informed by the Scripture or one is reconstructing all of life as informed by the authority of some other God.

2.)This means that we could call R2K, “The TheoRecons of a false god.”

3.) R2K as Theorecons of a false god are theologians of glory for their god — the God who defeats and crushes the one true God of the theonomists/reconstructionists.

4.) Note therefore the contest between R2K and the theonomists/reconstructionists is a contest between the pagan God of R2K and the one True God of the Bible. The Christianity of R2K is a different religion than the Christianity of the theonomists/postmillennialists and the god and God of those two different religions are at war with one another all across the Reformed landscape. The result of that war will define what it means to be Reformed for generations to come. Choose ye this day whom you shall follow; the god of Escondido or the God of the Bible.

5.) The New Testament, as well as the whole Bible, is a postmillennial document. Again because Scott has a different God than the theonomists he reads the Scripture through the lens of that different false god. Keep in mind that is called IDOLATRY.

6.) It has been said before but I will offer it up again here. R2K is Roman Catholic inasmuch as in their thinking Jesus Christ is always on the Cross. If they were to carry around croziers it would be with Jesus on the Cross. For them, Christ is only victorious in a spiritual manner and so they have him upon the cross still. This is why they complain about postmillennialism being a “theology of glory.” Don’t you care ever suggest that Jesus is not still on the cross and instead is reigning at the right hand of the Father. They can not have an ascended Jesus who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords except in a “spiritual” (read GNOSTIC) sense.

Dr. Strange and the Multicult of Madness — Part III

Dr. Alan Strange of Mid America Seminary keeps podcasting on the evils of Christian Nationalism and we here keep responding to his “R. Scott Clark with a Southern accent” routine.

1.) Strange denies that the Scripture gives detail as to what Biblical government looks like. He is fine with saying there are principles that Scripture gives on government but there are not specific details. Here we have to carefully dissect. It is true that Scripture does not teach that only Monarchy is acceptable as a form of Government or Republicanism, etc. However, Scripture is clear that whether Monarchy or Republicanism all Magistrates must bow the knee to Jesus Christ. Now, bowing the knee to Jesus Christ means that Magistrates seek to implement a law-order that consistently reflects the law-order limned out in Scripture. That is a law order that has the Ten Commandments as the foundation with the general equity of the civil law as the case law. This would exist in all forms of government despite the structural and procedural differences found in varying governments. This much would be required for every Christian who would hold the position of Magistrate, regardless of the form of government within which they are operating.

We should be clear here that Dr. Alan Strange would certainly oppose what is proffered above. The disagreement here is regarding the abiding validity of the general equity of God’s civil law. Christians support that. Egghead Amillennial professors don’t support that.

2.) Strange appeals to the Jerusalem council in Acts 15 to prove that Christians shouldn’t be seeking to “Israelitize” the world. Strange’s implication here is, “just so Christians shouldn’t seek to Christianize” the world. Strange, presumably, comes to this conclusion by reasoning that just as the Jerusalem council did not require the Gentiles to become cultural Jews (Israelites) before they became Christians so nations today do not need to become culturally Christian before they become Christian. The Gentiles did not need to accept Israelite law.

The problem here with this reasoning (and it is a HUGE problem) is that the issues in the Jerusalem council were issues that dealt with the ceremonial law, and not the civil law. The Jerusalem council decided that the Gentile nations did not have to embrace the ceremonial law of the OT before they could become Christian. Of course, the weakness in Strange’s analogy/argument here is that no one on our side of the fence is looking for the nations to take up God’s ceremonial law which has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. What the anti-rabid Amillennialists who oppose Strange’s strange thinking desire is for all nations to bow the knee to Christ and His moral law and the general equity of the civil law which is based on God’s moral law. Strange, like all rabid Amillennialists does not want that. Strange desires that Nations be able to make up God’s law as they go. Strange does not want a hard standard, preferring instead generic principles as opposed to a “blueprint.”

3.) Strange marches out the old canard that because Christ said “My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36)” that therefore we should not expect Christian nations. Strange takes Jesus’ phrase “My kingdom is not of the world,” to mean “My kingdom is not in this world.” This is a misinterpretation of mammoth proportions.

John 18:36 does not teach that the Lord Christ abdicated His authority in the public square. What is being taught in this phrase was captured by the Scholar B. F. Wescott,

B. F. Wescott speaking of John 18:36 could comment,

“Yet He did claim a sovereignty, a sovereignty of which the spring and the source was not of earth but of heaven. My Kingdom is not of this world (means it) does not derive its origin or its support from earthly sources.”

The Gospel According To John — pg. 260

Dr. Greg Bahnsen echoing Wescott’s work wrote,

“‘My kingdom is not of [ek: out from] this world,’” is a statement about the source — not the nature — of His reign, as the epexegetical ending of the verse makes obvious: ‘My kingdom is not from here [enteuthen].’ The teaching is not that Christ’s kingdom is wholly otherworldly, but rather that it originates with God Himself (not any power or authority found in creation.)”

Dr. Greg Bahnsen
God & Politics — pg. 27

The appeal to the Jerusalem council to disprove Christian Nationalism in no way follows.

3.) Strange seems to think that Christian Nationalism works to the end of prioritizing the impact of Christianity upon nations and cultures above the impact of Christianity upon individuals. Strange seems to think the values of Christian Nationalism contradict the values of the kingdom of God and His Christ. This is a curious critique. It is curious because it seems to presuppose that kingdom of God values for individuals cannot (or maybe should not) fit, hand in glove, with kingdom of God values for nations. Strange’s concern, as such, is that Christians will concentrate more on building Christian nations vs. concentrating on heralding Christ for individuals. However, there is a unnatural division here. Christianity is not only a faith that converts it is a faith that sanctifies. Strange seems to want to see individual conversion but doesn’t think so much of a sanctification that yields to peoples bowing their knee to Jesus Christ in every area of life.

4.) Keep in mind that if we should not be aiming at Christian nations, per Strange, neither should be aim at rearing Christian families, because if we raise Christian families we are sure to eventually get Christian nations. I mean, emphasizing the necessity to raise Christian families may well lead to a wrong prioritizing of our kingdom values so that we no longer are evangelizing individuals.

5.) Strange says the central value of Christianity is that individuals, churches, and families should be walking with Christ. But if nations are merely families magnified (and that is the etymological definition of “nation”) why should Christian Nationalism be excised from this dynamic? Why individuals, churches, and families, but not nations?

6.) Strange insists that the central message of Christianity is to herald Christ to individuals and complains that Stephen Wolfe’s with his Christian Nationalism is teaching to the contrary that the central message of Christianity is to subdue the nations of the world for Christ even if the individuals of those nations aren’t saved. Here we wonder if we are in false dichotomy-ville? Isn’t this a case of “both/and” and not “either/or?” Christianity has the answer not only to the question, “How shall I be saved” but it also has the answer to the question, “How shall we then live.” To play the answers to these two questions off against one another as if one is prioritized above the other is not wise.

Honestly, on this point, it strikes me that Dr. Strange, like so many Amillennialists are just frightened out of their minds by the idea that Christianity might someday be in the ascendancy in forming governments, social-orders and cultures.

7.) Strange is appalled by the idea that Christians might want to see the Christianization of the world. This is Strange’s rabid Amillennialism talking. The Amillennialist teaches that the world — and the nations thereof — will not be Christianized before the return of Jesus Christ therefore they resist anything that aims at the organized promotion wherein the nations of the world are Christianized. The pessimistic eschatology of Amillennialism drives their opposition to Christian nationalism.

8.) Strange also brings up his horror that Christians might actually use the sword to force the anti-Christ pagans to bow the knee. I would guess that this is driven by the Pietism that often walks hand in hand with Amillennialism. I do not see a problem with bringing the sword to bear to press a Christian social order upon Christ haters just as Augustine promoted in the Donatist controversy, just as Charlemagne did among the Franks, just as the Crusader states did among the Muslims, just as Cromwell did among the Catholics. Indeed, I have concluded that many Christians would rather themselves be ruled by the sword of pagans then rule by the sword in the name of Christ over Christ haters. The logic seems to be it is more pleasing to Jesus for His name to be set aside by the Christ hater than it is pleasing to Jesus to rule over the Christ hater consistent with His gracious law-Word.

9.) Dr. Alan Strange insists that the Christian message is “spiritual” implying that Wolfe’s nationalism is “carnal.” In Pietistic speak “spiritual” means non-corporeal and abstract. Strange equates “spiritual” as only preaching the Gospel as the means to transform a nation. Honestly, this seems to deny the Reformed idea that the magistrate bears the sword. If a magistrate is Christian and if he bears the sword consistent with God’s gracious Law-Word then why shouldn’t he force people to conform to God’s gracious Law-Word even if they don’t internally believe it? Further, if wicked magistrates become tyrants (as they currently are) then why shouldn’t God’s people not resist as our forefathers resisted wicked magistrates when they had as a motto “No King, but King Jesus?” Why shouldn’t satanic magistrates be pulled down by Christians by force if satanic magistrates are seeking to overthrow Jesus Christ to be replaced by Christian magistrates who will enforce God’s gracious Law-Word upon the people?

10.) Strange argues that Christians should pursue, as Kingdom value, being conquered. He exalts weakness, suffering and losing. Now, I have no problem with teaching that the Christian will suffer and know weakness and will lose, however those realities arise in the context of seeking to conquer for the crown rights of Jesus Christ. Strange makes it very clear his Pietistic Amillennial Christianity has no interest in manfully conquering. In the end these massively contrasting eschatologies (Rabid Amillennialism vs. garden variety Postmillennialism) end up yielding up a very different type of Christianity.

11.) If Strange glories in being “last” in terms of kingdom values, if he desires to be weak, if he desires to suffer he will revel in this rebuttal.

12.) Strange insists that Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s vision of Christian nationalism will lead to the marginalization of the Church. Further, Strange insists that Wolfe Christian nationalism vision is toxic and dangerous. Let us return the compliment and insist that Strange’s vision of the impact (or lack of impact) of Christianity on nations will lead the Church back to the Roman Amphitheatre with Christians being dined upon by wild beasts. Strange’s vision is blasphemous and traitorous to Jesus Christ and His divine Kingship.

13.) There is irony in all this. Strange complains about the militancy of Christian nationalism and yet Strange himself desires to impose his eschatology of defeat upon all Christians. In the end the rabid Amillennialist Strange is every bit as militant as the Christian Nationalist Wolfe.

14.) Strange insists that we in America do not really live in “real tyranny.” 60 million dead babies would testify to the contrary.

15.) Strange, at the end, even plays the “Wolfe says some things that sound racist” card. Strange even invokes the specter of Nietzsche and Mein Kampf. Strange clearly has been sipping at the WOKE Kool-Aide. Frankly, this horse hockey probably outrages me more than anything else Strange said. It is just so ridiculous and over the top.