Iron Ink

Rebutting Darryl Gnostic Hart On His Attempted Rebuttal Of James Baird

“That Baird can call for a government powerful enough to promote the true religion, only five years after government ignored civil liberties to enforce public health, is well night amazing. And yet, the author does not appear bashful in calling upon government to implement the idea of the public good by a minority of the American people.”

Darryl Gnostic Hart
Ordained Servant Article

1.) Belgic Confession, Article 36 is against Hart and in favor of Baird here;

“Their (Magistrates) office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also to protect the sacred ministry, that the kingdom of Christ may thus be promoted. They must therefore countenance the preaching of the Word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshiped by every one, as He commands in His Word.”

Clearly, Baird is within Confessional bounds while Hart is not.

2.) Hart continues to operate under the fallacy that Governments and Magistrates can be neutral as if Governments and Magistrates can avoid using its power to be about the business of promoting some religion as the true religion. To be succinct, Governments and Magistrates never fail to promote some religion that the Governments and Magistrates believe to be the one true religion. Certainly Hart can’t miss how the US Government and it’s magistrates promote the true religion of humanism with its sodomy, Trannieism, abortion, etc.

Hart always, without fail, misses the fact that Governments can not be and never have been neutral. Hart is blind to the fact that Government always promotes the religion it considers to be the true religion. What Hart is upset about is that the Government/Magistrate might champion Biblical Christianity. He’s frightened to death of a return to blue laws, or the forbidding of sex education in Government schools, or that Christ might be allowed back into our current Government education.

3.) Hart, and the other R2K heretics, need to consider the simple truth that

a.) Governments make laws
b.) All laws are derivative of morality
c.) All morality is derivative of religion
d.) Therefore all Governments are powerful enough and by necessity do promote the Magistrate’s vision of the one true religion.

4.) The fact that our government ignored our civil liberties to enforce our public health only proves that we need Christian government since a Christian government would never have embraced the humanist agenda to control its population through a pseudo disease scare. So, Hart’s “proof” that the government reaction to the Scamdemic proves we don’t need Christian government, in point of fact proves just the opposite. That our pagan “government ignored civil liberties to enforce public health,” demonstrates that we need Christian government so that this kind of thing never happens again and it is well nigh amazing that anybody would contend to the contrary — especially someone who claims to be a Christian.

5.) Hart complains about the idea of Christians “calling upon government to implement the idea of the public good by a minority of the American people.”

a.) Keep in mind that if the public good is not crafted by a Christian government it will necessarily mean that the religious adherents of some other religion will be calling upon the government to implement the idea of the public good. Does Hart think that the idea of the public good just leaps out of the head of Zeus? Does the man not realize that the public good is always shaped by the adherents of some religion?

b.) Hart’s implicit insistence that the public good has to be supported by the will of the majority is nothing but Rousseau’s idea of the general will, which is nothing but pure humanism.

c.) Hart, by opposing explicitly Christian government, ends up championing for explicitly non-Christian government. Now, Hart will try to insist that he wants neither Christian nor non-Christian government but that takes us back to the myth of neutrality. No government exists that isn’t a derivative from and a reflection of some kind of religion.

Darryl Gnostic Hart, were we living in a sane world, would be told that he either needs to repent of abandoning the Kingship of Jesus Christ or else be excommunicated, but we no longer live in a sane ecclesiastical world and so Hart (who has said even more egregious non-Christian statements) will continue being printed in pagan publications that call themselves “Christian” such as the OPC’s Ordained Servant.

Dr. Rev. Mark Dever & His Fundamentalist Christianity

“I’m a fundamentalist Christian, but I am happy to have Muslims, Jews, liberal Christians and non-religious types in our government.”

Rev. Mark Dever

For those who might not know, Dever started the 9Marks movement and was, in his day, what we used to call a “mover and shaker.” He’s not taken as some dimwit from Podunk, NY, though the above words testify to just the opposite.Where to start?

1.) Dever obviously isn’t smart enough to realize that there is no such thing as “non-religious” types. Of course there are those who claim to be non-religious but the claim and the reality are separated by a vast chasm.

2.) All Dever has told the reader with the above quote is that his “fundamentalism” is of a liberal variety. In other words Dever is a “Liberal fundamentalist.”

3.) Of course Dever is a Baptist and being Baptist the quote should not surprise us.

4.) Dever here communicates that he is for societal pluralism. Societal Pluralism is a nice way of saying “polytheism.” Dever, in the quote above states he is a polytheist. We wants to invite all the gods and their adherents into the public square.

5.) Although he doesn’t say it, we presume that Dever would also be fine with Biblical Christians being in the government. On the other hand he might not be, since a Biblical Christian would oppose “Muslims, Jews, liberal Christians and non-religious types in our government.”

6.) This Dever quote goes a long way towards proving my contention that “fundamentalist” is an inescapable category. Everyone you meet is a fundamentalist of one stripe or another. I am a Classical-Historical Calvinist fundamentalist. Illhan Omar and Zohar Mamdani are Muslim fundamentalists. Bibi Netanyahu, Bill Clinton, and Jeffrey Epstein were or are NWO fundamentalists. I never meet someone who is not a fundamentalist.

7.) However, Dever certainly is no fundamentalist Christian, though he may well be a “fundamentalist” “Christian.”

8.) Dever thinks he is being broad minded here but Dever’s statement really betrays a very narrow-minded approach. Dever is perfectly fine with any liberal system that embraces pluralism until someone shows up and says to Mr. Broadminded Dever … “Would you mind too terribly much including in your pluralism my view that abominates pluralism?” So, Dever is pluralistic just so long as what is not included in his pantheon of gods is a God who says, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.” At that point Dever’s pluralism ends. He owns the god who teaches that all gods in the public square is fine except for any God who says all other gods have to go.

9.) When it is the case that one has Muslims, Jews, Liberal Christians, and “non-religious types” in one and the same government where does one find the ultimate transcendent reference point needed to rule? I mean, all the gods of all these people oppose one another. Given that opposition what ground does the government operate upon in order to make law? The Bible? The Talmud? Sharia? Humanist Manifestos?

I don’t think Dever and other’s like him have thought this through.

10.) Rev. Dr. Dever is not a wise man — and that regardless of how many degrees he has behind his name.

From The Mailbag – Pastor, Where Are We Supposed To Attend On The Lord’s Day?

Dear Pastor,

You’ve made it clear that NAPARC, CREC, the “Ogden Boys,” and Apologia, among others, are “over the falls” as you recently put it (besides the last one being Baptists). The question I put to you is what would you have the people in the pews actually do, who do not and cannot live in Charlotte, Michigan? Where are they supposed to go on the Lord’s Day?

Lancelot

Hello Lancelot,

First, on this score, let us cite the Belgic Confession of Faith;

Article XXIX. The Marks of the True Church, and Wherein
it Differs from the False Church

We believe that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern
from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which
are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But
we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with
the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we
say that the body and communion of the true Church must be
distinguished from all sects that call themselves the Church.

The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure
doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure
administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church
discipline is exercised in chastening of sin; in short, if all things are
managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary
thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of
the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from
which no man has a right to separate himself.

My problem with the modern reformed “church” is that I am certain that where it is denouncing Kinism, and embracing egalitarianism it is at that point that the “pure doctrine of the gospel is not being preached therein.” No one would ever say that the Gnostics preached the pure doctrine of the Gospel, yet that is exactly what Egalitarianism is an expression. The current church, which disembodies man in regeneration/conversion by saying that God ordained distinctions are taken away in the Church is Gnostic. Ironically enough, it is also Marxist since the Marxists have forever been saying that their intent is to flatten all the distinctions among the nations. Is it possible for Gnostics and Marxists to give the pure doctrine of the gospel in the preaching and teaching?

Second, these denominations have anathematized themselves by anathematizing the race-realists. They have hurled their fatwas, Papal bulls, and anathemas repeatedly at the Biblical Christians. Should they expect that we who have been on the receiving end of their blasphemies now conclude anything else except that they are not true churches?

So, that sets the context for the question you ask and for the answer.

First, as to answering your question, if I were in the position of other folks around the country I would try to operate thusly,

1.) I would realize that not all congregations are equally bad. I would further realize that there might be yet congregations in these denominations that are positively good. If I were considering membership of a positively good one I would find out if that good congregation was sending money to the bad denomination and if that good congregation was sending money, I would attend there but I would not financially support the local congregation until it quit supporting the bad denomination. These denominations need to either repent or have their money source dried up.

2.) If there was a congregation that were not intolerable and if I had children, I might attend but I would not let the children go to Sunday School and I would make sure to debrief the children every week, as needs be, by asking them, in a kind of catechetical way, “So, what did we hear today from the pulpit that is not true?” Believe me, you could write hefty tomes’ on what is being said today by clergy that is not true.

3.) If there are no churches in your area that are at least tolerable (and I get phone calls from these people quite frequently) then I would start a home bible study and find good material. I would also, during that time together on the Lord’s Day, listen to one good sermon. (There are scads of them on line.) I would also designate my tithes and offerings to churches that are seeking to be faithful in a very difficult climate. Failing that, I would send tithes and offerings to para-Church organizations that you know and trust.

As a result of your home bible-study, it may be that God would be pleased to start a little church. If that is the direction that matters were heading I would find solid Elders in another church who could serve as kind of an umbrella for you in getting off the ground.

4.) What I would not do is continue to attend and support a ministry and church that is decidedly in opposition to my undoubted catholic Christian faith and worldview. These are not churches but are only referred to as churches by way of habit or courtesy.

Finally, please realize that in all this I doubtless have fault. My paradigm is likely tied too tightly and I see things and the implications of those things that will come to pass if what I see is not corrected. Seeing things that many others perhaps do not see probably tends to make me overly-critical. I like to tell myself in my more optimistic moments that the church in the West is probably not as bumfuzzled as I tend to think it is.

There remain good churches and clergy out there. I am friends/acquaintances with more than a few. A few actually serve in NAPARC and CREC churches for now. So, all is not lost.

I am deeply sorry that you are in this situation. I daily pray for repentance for the church in the West. I daily remind myself that though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.

And I know that it is true of me as St. Paul said;

“This is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners – of whom I am chief.”

Religion, Culture, & The One True Christian Faith

If one looks into the etymological origin of the word “religion” one finds great disputation, which is kind of odd given all the heat that the word creates today.

Some will insist that the etymological origins of the word “religion” comes from the noun “religio.” The ancient philosopher Cicero linked religio to the Latin verb “relegere” which means “to go through or over again in reading, speech, or thought.” This introduces the idea of repetition into religion which, for those from Liturgical Churches, makes a certain sense since Liturgical Churches do demonstrate in their worship going through or over again in reading, speech, or thought. Consider the Book of Common Prayer.

Others, following later ancients such as Servius, Lactantius, Augustine will insist that the word “religion” comes from the Latin word, “religare” which means, “to bind fast.” This would find the purpose of religion being one of societal epoxy – the means by which people are bound together. If this is an accurate etymology then it becomes clear that religion is an inescapable concept since a culture comprised, as it is, of institutional infrastructure can’t exist without the societal epoxy that is religion. If this is accurate then there is the closest possible relationship between religion and culture. If culture is defined as the outward expression of a particular people groups religious/theological beliefs then culture and religion, by necessity imply one another. Where you see culture, there you see religion and when you see religion you see the manifestation of that religion in the culture.

If we go back to religion being defined from the Latin verb “relegere” which means “to go through or over again in reading, speech, or thought,” we may not be that far away from religion defined as “religare,” (to bind), due to the fact that “to go through or over again in reading, speech, or thought,” results in whatever is being gone over again being bound upon the person who is repeating the reading, speech, or thought.

If religion is indeed defined as “to bind,” and if it is proper to see religion as being the societal glue that binds a culture together then what must be observed next is the question of the legitimacy of non-Christian religions. Certainly, we would agree that the religions of different infidel peoples would serve to bind their infidel cultures. However, the binding that false religion brings to pagan cultures, will always be a religion that is to that society what foot-binding was to Oriental women. As the footbinding of Oriental women indeed worked but at the cost of the health of the women, so false religions work to bind cultures together but at the cost of the flourishing of the peoples where they obtain.

Scripture refers to these infidel cultures bound together by pagan religions;

For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your forefathers… (I Peter 1:18)

The “empty way of life” is easily enough understood as the pagan culture created by infidel religion and participated in by individuals. All infidel religions create pagan cultures but those pagan cultures are characterized as a “empty way of life.” When the power of the one true religion brought by Christ envelopes a people group the result is the culture changes because that which binds the culture (religion) has changed.

One consequence of the changing out of false religion for the one true religion is that the binding is no longer coercive. False religions, being false, can only bind by way of coercion. Individuals are forced, by the binding power of false religion, to move in terms of the false religion. Women are forced to wear the Hijab. Westerners are forced to use insane pretend pronouns. Oriental women were forced to have their feet bound. NWO types are forced to embrace pedophilia, etc. etc. etc.

Christianity sets individuals free to gladly and willingly obey. The power of the Gospel is the power to set us free from slavery to sin to be slaves of Christ. When Christianity sweeps through a people group coercion is only visited upon those who would throw off the Christian religion in favor of some other previous empty way of life. Biblical Christianity though, has historically always brought greater liberty for individuals since Christianity as a religion alone introduces “self-control” as the primary control mechanism in a Christian culture. Other cultures driven by infidel religions must find controls in a more top down fashion since false religions are never characterized by “self-control.” False religions always leave the problem of the self in place and so must implement top town control mechanisms to reinforce their religion.

A Reading List On Covenant Theology

A friend wrote asking for a list of books I’ve read touching Covenant theology. He thought given the current controversy on identifying the Israel of God (who Israel has become in NT theology) that it would be a profitable list. All of these books will make clear that OT Israel was the cocoon that was shuffled off when it became the butterfly that is the Church, and so there are no further promises left to the Israel after the flesh.

So, I offer this list, as I randomly have recalled my reading over the decades;

1.) Cornelius Venema – Christ And Covenant Theology: Essays on Election, Republication

Deals with issues surrounding the rise of covenant theology in relation to R2K theology.

2.) Stephen Myers – God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture

Is intended as something of a primer in Reformed covenant theology

3.) O. Palmer Robertson – Christ of the Covenants

Traces Christ through the unfolding of the one covenant of grace.

4.) Charles D.Provan – The Church is Israel Now: The Transfer of Conditional Privilege

Demonstrating, from Scripture that it is Dispensationalists who practice replacement theology by replacing the Church with unbelieving Israel

5.) David Howeldra – Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two?

Argues that the promises to OT Israel are fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

6.) O. T. Allis – Prophecy & The Church

Absolutely destroys Dispensationalism’s teaching that promises remain to physical Israel. Best book I’ve ever read unraveling Dispensationalism’s errant views of covenant theology.

7.) O Palmer Robertson – The Israel of God

Robertson examines the OT prophecies related to land, God’s people, the coming Kingdom and other topics and shows how Christ and his church fulfill those prophecies today.

8.) Francis Roberts – God’s Covenants: The Mystery and Marrow of the Bible

Five volumes. I’ve only made it through Vol. 1. Exhaustive explanation of the covenant of Grace as understood in the classical “Covenant of Works,” “Covenant of Grace” paradigm.

9.) Rowland Ward – God and Adam

A handy volume giving a birds eye view of various explanations of the mechanics of covenant theology. Very helpful.

10.) Geerhardus Vos – Biblical Theology: Old and New Testament

Vos was an absolute genius. I’ve read everything I have been able to find by him. You will not understand Covenant theology until you have read Vos. Unfortunately Vos was Amil so read discerningly on that score.

11.) G. K. Beale – A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New

Beale argues that every major concept of the New Testament is a development of a concept from the Old and is to be understood as a facet of the inauguration of the latter-day new creation and kingdom. The emphasis is on the continuity between OT and NT which only covenant theology can provide. Beale is another genius who has greatly helped me. Again … he is Amill.

12.) Jonathan Gerstner – Wrongly Dividing the Truth

An needed attack on Dispensationalism that presupposes Covenant theology.

13,) Geerhardus Vos, ‘The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology’ in Richard B. Gaffin (ed.), Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: the Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos

14.) J. D. Hall & Joel Webbon – The Hyphenated Heresy: Judeo-Christianity

Though not strictly a book on covenant theology this book does demonstrate repeatedly that the Church is the inheritor of all the promises to Israel and is today the “Israel of God.” Clearly teaches that OT physical Israel has been replaced (fulfilled) by the Church.

14.) See also the appropriate sections of Systematic Theologies

Robert Letham
Louis Berkhof
Charles H. Hodge
Herman Bavinck
Robert Reymond
Francis Turretin
R. L. Dabney
John Calvin (Institutes 2: 9-11)
Herman Hoeksema

HH offers a decidedly different view of the covenants seeing more continuity between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace than what might be termed “classical Reformed” theology. However, HH makes some interesting points that are worthy of consideration.

These are what I remember reading off the top of my head. If I recall more I will edit and add them at a later date.