Category: R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology)

Debunking Radical Two Kingdoms Theology

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.

 

We Affectionally Call Him Chrissy Gordon

Over on Facebook the Rev. Christopher J. Gordon (whom we affectionately and derisively refer to as “Chrissy”) wrote a post repeated below that captures the typical effeminate character of modern R2K anti-Christianity.

Chrissy writes,

The problem for the modern theonomist is that he mislocates the Christian. Our present sojourn is in Babylon, and not Jerusalem. Daniel was not called to Hebrew nationalize Babylon in his temporary sojourn as if Babylon should become the new Jerusalem. Daniel worked within the Babylonian system to remain loyal to Christ, to worship his king, and to patiently wait, during an appointed seventy years, until the exiles were brought home and the kingdom was restored in its fullness.

BLMc responds,

1.) It is because I take this criticism so seriously that I labor assiduously to not mislocate as Christian those who are activists for R2K Christianity.

2.) So, understand what Chrissy is saying here is that all places and locations in all times for the Christian has been Babylon. Never has there been a time or place in all of human history where a locale has been Christian. It’s all been, every where and all the time Babylon. Indeed, the school of “thought” that Chrissy belongs to insists that it literally is not possible to refer to any culture as Christian. It’s all been, is now, and always will be Babylon. Disregard colonial America. Disregard Charlamagne’s Kingdom. Disregard Cromwell’s England. Disregard the Christian states set up under the Crusaders. Disregard all of Byzantium. Disregard Alfred the Great’s Kingdom. All of it … every shred of it was nothing but Babylon.

And as it has always been, is now, and always will be Babylon then obviously any attempt to bring the authority of Christ over the nations to fruition is a vain attempt.

And this is insisted in the face of Revelation 21 where it is explicitly taught,

 24 And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. 25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). 26 And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it. 

Chrissy insists upon this in the face of the Great Commission which is the launching pad that accounts for the conversion of the nations that is declared in the book of Revelation. So, our Lord Christ commands us to go and disciple the nations and then in Revelation we learn that commission was successfully accomplished. Yet, Rev. Chrissy insists that all that has been, all that is now, and all that ever will be, will be Babylon. I hear they often call him Rev. Eeyeore.

3.) Chrissy insists that Daniel was not to Hebrew Nationalize Babylon. However,

a.) We are not taught explicitly in Scripture that all Christians of all time will always be Daniels living in Babylon.

b.) We do see how Jonah did Hebrew Nationalize Nineveh.

c.) We do see how the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah, and Canaan were killed by God because they refused to be Hebrew Nationalized.

So, we clearly see Chrissy’s model is all buggered up. Indeed, I would say that Chrissy is an enemy of the cause of Christianity, just as he implies I am an enemy of the cause of Christ since I am working counter to Christ’s true intent.

4.) Note that Chrissy’s model takes what was unique to Daniel’s time and absolutizes that unique period as typical for all time. He does this quite without any exegetical support for that move. Chrissy commits the classic fallacy of taking what is descriptive for Daniel’s time and making it prescriptive for all time. This is something that all R2K-bots do.

5.) Since Daniel was mentioned, we might mention Esther too. The Book of Esther shows that God’s people can, even while in exile settle their scores with people who sought their destruction. Hey, Chrissy, should we insist that the book of Esther is prescriptive? (Hat Tip to Viisaus for this observation.)

Chrissy continues,

So, too, the church waits during her time of exile for Christ to physically return and bring our present, earthly sojourn to an end. Then, the new Jerusalem will descend to us and the kingdom of God will come in all of its fullness and glory. For the present, we look much more like Daniel under Nebuchadnezzar than Israel under her geopolitical kings.

BLMc responds,

1.) Note to Chrissy… The Christian has already been delivered from their exile. We read this reality in Colossians where the Holy Spirit teaches,

 13 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and [c]conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption [d]through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

It is true that there is “not yet” component to the deliverance from exile and I’m glad to believe and teach that. However, Chrissy, and the R2K gang who can’t exegete straight have a theology that is nothing but “not yet.” They accuse us of having a “theology of glory,” and I accuse them of having a theology where Christ remains pinned to the Cross. Their theology is grossly under-realized.

2.) The whole bit about the post-Ascension age looking more like Israel’s time under Nebuchadnezzar than under the godly kings of Israel is pure amillennialism defeatism. It is either a outright denial of Christ’s Kingship or it is a gnosticizing of the Kingship of Christ. It is pessimism at its finest. When people own this theology the only people they fight against is the people who want to fight against evil and wickedness in high places.

I can’t imagine these men standing before Christ in that final day:

Christ: “What did you do in light of my Great Commission?

Chrissy and the army of surrender monkeys:

We fought against the theonomists who wanted your crown rights over every area of life.

Christ: Say what? You did what? 

Depart from me. I never knew you.