Category: R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology)

Debunking Radical Two Kingdoms Theology

The Urgent Appeal Of Dr. R. Scott Clark For Societal Polytheism

Who in the ancient church, before AD 311, draw the inference from the New Testament teaching about the magistrate that Christianity should have a privileged place in the empire? What do you find in the New Testament teaching about the magistrate that leads you to think that Christianity should have a privileged place in society?

Dr. R. Scott Clark
X Post
Advocating for Anabaptist Pluralism

1.)  When Scott talks about the ancient church he is implying that the Church only begins with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Remember, the Church extends back to the restoration of Adam and Eve after the fall.  Does Scott believe that the Church is only a New Testament reality? If so that’s a very Baptist way of thinking.

2.) The fact that Scott wants to focus only on the NT here also suggests that Scott thinks that if we want to know what the Church thought we can only consult the Church after the crucifixion and resurrection (and apparently only up to AD 311). The Church’s Scripture prior to the NT apparently doesn’t count. Is Scott, what we call “a New Testament Christian?”

3.) When Scott asks

What do you find in the New Testament teaching about the magistrate that leads you to think that Christianity should have a privileged place in society?

We ought to hear him asking:

What do you find in the New Testament teaching about the magistrate that leads you to think that Christ should have a privileged place in society?

Scott is actually asking the question why Christians today would ever think that Christ should have the preeminence? Scott is suggesting that Jesus Christ who is “King of Kings” and “Lord of Lords,” should NOT have a privileged place in society. According to Scott Jesus Christ should step aside so that other gods can have equal air time. Per. Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary Jesus Christ should not have a privileged place in any given society. Dr. R. Scott Clark is telling God and the world that it is wrong (sinful) for Christians to desire that Jesus Christ should have a privileged place in every society.

THIS IS MADNESS.

Keep in mind dear reader that if Jesus Christ is not privileged in any society that, by default means, that some other God or God concept is going to be privileged in the society where Jesus Christ is not privileged. Since there is no neutrality, it is not possible for a society to not have some God or god concept be privileged. When Dr. R. Scott Clark says these kinds of magnificently stupid things Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster Seminary is advocating for IDOLATRY.

However, quite to the contrary of Dr. R. Scott Clark’s expostulations there is a NT text

Act 17:6 “These men who have turned the world upside down have now come here, 7and Jason has welcomed them into his home. They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, named Jesus!”

Now unless Dr. Clark wants to suggest that the accusations brought against Paul and his compatriots here in Thessalonica were lies we clearly have a passage where it is taught that the spread of a Christianity which privileged Jesus Christ was a threat to previous pagan social orders.

Folks need to understand what guys like Dr. R. Scott Clark and Dr. Kevin DeYoung are trying to do here. They are trying to rivet upon the Reformed Church in America the idea that it is God’s express will that societies and social orders must be pluralistic/polytheistic. This is societal polytheism is a positive good from God to His Church per these anti-Christs, and to object to them is worthy of being cast out of the Church.

And of course, we don’t hold with Dr. R. Scott Clark that only appeal to the New Testament can be made. Being Biblical Christians we believe that the OT is part of God’s revealed Word and there we find in Psalm 2;

Why do the [a]nations [b]rage,
And the people plot a [c]vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the Lord and against His Anointed,[d] saying,
3 “Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”

4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
6 “Yet I have [e]set My King
[f]On My holy hill of Zion.”

7 “I will declare the [g]decree:
The Lord has said to Me,
‘You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You.
8 Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
9 You shall [h]break them with a rod of iron;
You shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel.’ ”

10 Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 [i]Kiss the Son, lest [j]He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.

 

 

Calvinism … Then & Now

“Calvinism denied that the Kingdom of God is to be equated with the church. Instead, wherever God reigns, there is the Kingdom—and God should reign everywhere. Hence, man can serve God everywhere, and the Kingdom of God includes every area of life, and every institution which obeys his commandments. Thus, church, civil government, school, agriculture, art, business, every realm under God’s law is an area of Kingdom activity.”

“All who are content with a humanistic law system and do not strive to replace it with Biblical law are guilty of idolatry. They have forsaken the covenant of their God, and they are asking us to serve other gods. They must be called out of their idolatry into the service of the living God.”

~R.J. Rushdoony

1.) Militant Amillennialism, (R2K) however insists that the Kingdom of God is an exact synonym with the Church. As such, no Institutional realities outside the Church can be part of the Kingdom of God according to Militant Amillennialism. Further, any Reformed Christian who disagrees with them on this are not to be tolerated. Keep in mind that when consistent this means that Militant Amillennialism does not allow for Christian being used in an adjectival sense. Because nothing can be part of the Kingdom of God except the Church there is no such thing as Christian Magistrates, Christian family, Christian education, Christian law, Christian Nations or even Christendom. According to Militant Amillennialism all of this reflects category mistakes in thinking.

2.) As such, per the quote above, it is indeed the case that all Militant Amillennialism (as well as any other expression of “Christianity” that agree with them in this matter) is indeed guilty of Idolatry and as they are guilty of idolatry no Biblical Christian should be found in a Church where the Church itself promotes this or where this idea is promoted by the clergy of the Church. Idolatry is, after all, heresy.

3.) Note that where it is believed that the Church alone is an exact synonym for “The Kingdom of God,” there you are going to find an entitlement mentality. If, as a clergy member, you alone are a servant of “the Kingdom of God,” then you alone are special the way nobody else in any other calling is special. You alone, as a servant of the Kingdom of God, are thus separated and exalted from the rest of the poor schlubs who labor in the comparatively insignificant “common realm.” As such, you dare not correct the “Kingdom of God” clergy about anything they speak on since they have a relationship to God that is unique to the back of the bus crew.

This explains why you find such arrogance among the R2K types. In their theology they’re just better than the rest of us. Now, that idea is likely often left unstated and the R2K clergy may not even be epistemologically self-conscious about their hoity toity ways, but it only takes a little amount of time interacting with them before you realize that these people believe they are riding in the front of the bus and all the folks riding in the back of the bus should just “hush.”

The Common Ground Between R2K & Doctrinaire Communism

“The (Russian) Orthodox Church already had martyrs to Communism: but Patriarch Tikhon (1865 – 1925), for all his earlier courage, was not to be among them. In June, the Communists broke him. He signed a statement declaring that his treatment had been justified because of his anti-Soviet attitudes, and that he had not suffered in confinement. He made this formal avowal of surrender: ‘I have completely adopted the Soviet platform, and consider that the Church must be non-political.’

But the blood of Orthodox Archbishop Benjamin and Catholic Msgr. Budkiewicz cried out from the ground against that.”

Warren H. Carroll
The Rise & Fall of Communist Revolutions – p. 164

What is interesting in this quote is that the Russian Communists, after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 were insisting that the Churches in Russia must be, by way of doctrinal commitment, be non-political — that is to say they must not be involved in speaking to state policy.

In turn, the interest in that is found in the fact that such a Communist policy is the same policy that the R2K chaps from Escondido (Westminster West) and elsewhere in the Reformed denominational world insist must be the policy of the Reformed church. So, both the Communists and the Radical Two Kingdom “theologians” like David Van Drunen, R. Scott Clark, Michael Horton, J. V. Fesko, D. G. Hart, Chris Gordon, T. David Gordon, Kevin DeYoung, ad infinitum, each agree that the Church must be non-political. (Never mind the consideration that if the church is non-political it is at that point following a extraordinarily political path.)

The Communists tortured Patriarch Tikhon in order to get his mind right on the subject of the “non-political nature of the church” and R2K does all it can to close the door against those who defy their Communist skubala that insists that the Church is necessarily obligated to be “non-political.”

Exposing the R2K Agenda of Dr. Kevin De Young’s In His Interpretation of the WCF

The duties required in the Second Commandment are…the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

Westminster Larger Catechism 108

It seems pretty clear from the above that those clergy who subscribe to the WCF, are required to be adamantly opposed to a “principled pluralism” that allows for all the gods to be in the public square and yet Rev. Kevin DeYoung can write;

‘”Gone from WCF 23:3 in the American revision are any references to the civil magistrate’s role in suppressing heresies and blasphemies, in reforming the church, in maintaining a church establishment, and in calling and providing for synods…. In its place, the American revision lists four basic functions for the civil magistrate relative to the church…(4) protect all people so no one is injured or maligned based on his or her religion or lack of religion.”

With this quote above DeYoung puts the WCF in contradiction to itself. De Young would interpret WCF 23:3 as in direct contradiction to WLC 108, and while not trying to be too persnickety, Dr. Rev. De Young also, via his interpretation of the American revised WCF 23:3 put the Westminster Confession in contradiction with itself in WCF 19:4;

To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

WCF 19.4

19:4 teaches that a general equity relating to the judicial laws remain and further teaches that Christian Magistrates are required (obliged) to enforce that general equity where it remains. R2K chaps like Kevin De Young don’t like that idea because it doesn’t fit with their pursuit of a body politic devoted to principled pluralism (polytheism) with its god named “Natural Law,” as represented by the priesthood of government officials who interpret the will and Law-word of the god “Natural Law.”

That I am correct about this R2K Tom-foolery is seen in a quote from team R2K Reformed clergy member Dr. R. Scott Clark

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

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

Clark here is raising the horrors in the idea that the Magistrate might actually enforce the 1st table of God’s moral law. The danger he is bemoaning is “theocracy.” Like De Young, Dr. Clark desires a principled pluralism (polytheism) for the body politic with the god named “Natural Law” sitting as the God over all the gods. This god “Natural Law” has his word discovered and implemented by the governmental and bureaucratic priesthood who do his bidding.

DeYoung, along with Clark, and all the sycophants of R2K are insisting that the revised WCF now yields a required “principled pluralism,” and yet if DeYoung’s reading is correct on 23:3 then WLC 108 must be either revised or ignored. Note that WLC 108 explicitly says; “according to each one’s place and calling.” Clearly, Christian magistrates are being told that according to their place and calling they are to disapprove, detest, and oppose all false worship by removing said false worship and yet R2K in its pursuit of a non theocratic (principled pluralism / polytheism) theocracy (ruled by the god named Natural Law as interpreted by the governmental and bureaucratic priesthood) is denying their own confession with their errant theology.

DeYoung, wearing the uniform of team R2K is seeking to officially change the WCF from a Christian confession to a polytheistic confession. I say “officially,” because most Presbyterians already treat the WCF as a confession that requires the magistrate to rule over a polytheistic body-politic.

Refuting Rev. Chris Gordon’s “Babel Christianity”

This showed up in my newsfeed today as coming from Rev. Chris Gordon. I find it so interesting because both Gordon and his conversational partner here, Dr. Stephen Wolfe embrace Thomistic Natural Law thinking and yet they are vehemently disagreeing on the effects Christianity should have when landing among different social orders. So, they are both Thomists, philosophically, and yet they are at distinct loggerheads here.

A couple more things, first, Rev. Gordon teed this up by writing;

“Most important moment in my CN discussion with Stephen Wolfe:”

Chris clearly thinks he had Wolfe on the ropes here in this part of the interview.

Chis Gordon: Most people in CA are mocha, a mix of different ethnicities, do these people have a homeland?

Stephen Wolfe: California is unique though. If I stayed in CA…I don’t know. I bring this stuff up because of the importance of it…do you have a homeland? When I hear the stories of old CA…horseback riding in hills of Napa, 22 riffles…there is a sense of loss…

Bret Interjects:

1.) Gordon here clearly concedes that race and ethnicity are realities. After all, you can’t get to a “mocha, a mix of different ethnicities” without acknowledging that there were different ethnicities that existed that are now mixed.

2.) Second, I would say that if the decided majority of California was a thorough mix of different ethnicities than the homeland for those who were a thorough mix of different ethnicities would be California. It would be the homeland for those who had successfully embraced the Babel project that God judged in Genesis 11. California would be the homeland of the multicultural, multiracial and multi-faith people.

3.) Notice Wolfe’s response is to say that the previous people who occupied California have been run out by the new multicult crowd who now owns California, and that there is a certain sadness about that. I don’t know how anybody could disagree that it is sad when a particular people group is extinguished in favor of another people group whose bond is established by the fact that they have no bond except the bond of no bond.

Chris Gordon; The great message of the Christian gospel is I get to tell these people the church is the people and place, you have your soil, you have your place on the kingdom of God. Is this really the message that Christians want to give people, that previous generations lost all that was good with horses and guns, and that all of these many different “Johnny come lately” people groups really don’t belong with us? Is that our message, as Christians? Or might we seek to live in peace and harmony in this age together but with a distinctively Christian message that elevates us to a better salvific good, that God does give people a true homeland together in his kingdom, the church as Christ’s body, tearing down walls of hostility until we reach the heavenly land together of a multitude of nations worshipping God?

Bret responds,

1.) I’ll start at the end of Chris’ peroration here. One simply cannot have a multitude of nations worshipping God in the heavenly land if those nations have been bred out of existence, so that all that exists is a polyglot Babel stew in the land that is not yet heaven.

2.) As to this sentiment by Chris:

“The great message of the Christian gospel is I get to tell these people the church is the people and place, you have your soil, you have your place on the kingdom of God.”

All I can say is that it is contradictory to what John Calvin taught;

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

The Reformed faith does welcome all to “taste and see that the Lord is good.” It does not say that there is no grace for the mulatto, mestizo, or whasian. All men everywhere are commanded to repent and if they do repent they are members of the Kingdom of God. However, just as repenting doesn’t change one’s gender, so repenting doesn’t change one’s ethnicity or race. Differences remain and those differences should be acknowledged.

I have a friend who Pastors a church in a large urban area. This church is comprised of different ethnicities and races and yet this Pastor friend tells me that he repeatedly tells his flock, from the pulpit, that even though they are all one in Christ that when it comes to marriage they should not intermarry because race/ethnicity matters.

3.) As to this portion by Rev. Gordon;

Is this really the message that Christians want to give people … that all of these many different “Johnny come lately” people groups really don’t belong with us? Is that our message, as Christians?

I would say the answer to that question is, “yes, that is the Christian message.” Just as the stranger and alien could never own land in ancient Israel because they were not Hebrews so Christianity teaches that it is not ideal to give your nation as a homeland to those who do not belong to your nation by way of descent.  Chris really need to consider reading James Hoffmeier’s book on immigration to understand that Christianity has never taught that “Johnny come lately” people groups belong with us. Until Chris does read Hoffmeier maybe he’ll consider this quote from Robert Putnam on the subject;

“Immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to `hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.”

Robert Putnam
E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century
The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture

I am of the conviction that what Gordon is giving us here is a Anabaptist paradigm. The Anabaptist were (and remain) the great levelers and what Rev. Gordon is calling for here is for leveling, whether he realizes it or not. Gordon is offering here a “All colors bleed into one” Christianity. He is, as Calvin describes above, a flighty and scatterbrained dreamer.” If Gordon gets his way the result will not be some Christian paradise composed of a Babel organized social order. If Gordon gets his way he will get a social order such as described by Putnam in the quote above.

Finally, note here that Gordon, who is R2K, is doing what R2K says should never be done by ministers. He is getting out of his lane talking about an issue that isn’t a “Gospel issue.” However, if Gordon wants to insist that this is a “Gospel issue” notice once again how liberal/progressive R2K is when it takes up social issues. R2K forever wants to present itself as uncommitted on political issues but here is Gordon being the raging liberal.