McAtee Contra Dr. Walker & the Godless Coalition — Part VIII

This is part VIII in my response to one of the dumbest articles ever written by a Seminary prof. His name is Andrew Walker. The reason it is so dumb is that all of this has been answered in the past and yet he puts pen to paper to recycle all this again as if he is being original. This article is posted on “The Godless Coalition” Platform.

AW wrote,

As David VanDrunen’s work on the Noahic covenant has demonstrated, God promises to uphold the structures of creation “while the earth remains” (Gen. 8:22); and he will do so through natural law and common grace, even if obscured. If this provides us no assurance of cultural domination, so be it. We’re called to be the church of Christ, not the chaplain to Christendom.
BLMc responds
1.) It figures that someone advancing a heterodox position as Walker is would appeal to another purveyor of heterodoxy (Van Drunen) to sustain his weak sauce augmentation. Should the reader desire they can scan Iron Ink in order to see the many instances where I have dissected David VanDrunen and exposed his various errors. I will say here though that a Baptist like Walker appealing to DVD goes a long way towards suggesting that R2K is Anabaptist theology in its impulse.
2.) Walker is arguing that the Noahic covenant provides the model by which the Bible teaches that a common realm as ruled by Natural law exists whereby believers and unbelievers can co-exist together without reference to any religion shaping and influencing the common realm. We know that because if the Walker – Van Drunen’s (DVD) common realm was shaped and influenced by religion then it would not be a common realm.
DVD’s and now Walker’s reading of the Nohaic covenant is strained, at best, and twisted at worse. In terms of the Noahic Covenant keep in mind that,
a.) Noah was chosen as a new Adam, because “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.” Does Noah sound, in that phraseology, to be a representative of all mankind or a representative of God’s elect?
b.) In the context of the Noahic covenant, Noah offers sacrifice upon departing the Ark. Are we to understand that Noah is offering sacrifice to God as a representative, not of the Redeemed, but as a representative of all mankind?
c.) DVD and now Walker misreads the whole context of the Nohaic event. God floods the earth because of his dissatisfaction with mankind and raises up Noah to be another Adam. God saves this second Adam through judgment and establishes him in a cleansed garden Mountain sanctuary in order to be God’s representative. As God’s subsequent representative Adam placed in a new post-flood Eden, God repeats the same great commission given the first Adam before his own fall (Genesis 1:26-28). This great commission first given to Adam, and then to Noah is also given repeatedly to subsequent covenant heads throughout the book of Genesis thus connecting the story-line of God’s redemptive activity and thus showing that the Noahic covenant is not a covenant that creates a common realm ruled by natural law sans Walker and DVD. If the Noahic covenant is not a covenant that creates a common realm then everything that Walker is advancing is complete whale fecal matter.
A small Whitman’s sampler of Genesis texts wherein the Adamic cultural Mandate (Gen. 1:26-28) becomes part and parcel of the Redemptive History as given to subsequent covenant contexts. Notice the repeated themes in the following texts of,
(1) God Blessed them
(2) Be fruitful and multiply
(3) fill the earth
(4) subdue the earth
(5) rule over … the earth
And take especial note that the Nohaic covenant, contra DVD and now Walker, shares the language of the cultural Mandate that we find in subsequent Redemptive history unique unto God’s people, thus proving that the Noahic covenant was not a covenant that is unrelated to God’s Redemptive covenantal activity.
Genesis 1:26-28
English Standard Version (ESV)
26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Genesis 9:1, 7
English Standard Version (ESV)
9 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth… 7 And you, be fruitful and multiply, increase greatly on the earth and multiply in it.”
Genesis 12:2-3
English Standard Version (ESV)
2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
Genesis 17:2, 6, 8
English Standard Version (ESV)
2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly….6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you…. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”
Genesis 22:17-18
English Standard Version (ESV)
17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, 18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.”
Genesis 26:3-4
English Standard Version (ESV)
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and will bless you, for to you and to your offspring I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham your father. 4 I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed,
Genesis 26:24
English Standard Version (ESV)
24 And the Lord appeared to him the same night and said, “I am the God of Abraham your father. Fear not, for I am with you and will bless you and multiply your offspring for my servant Abraham’s sake.”
Genesis 28:3-4
English Standard Version (ESV)
3 God Almighty[a] bless you and make you fruitful and multiply you, that you may become a company of peoples. 4 May he give the blessing of Abraham to you and to your offspring with you, that you may take possession of the land of your sojournings that God gave to Abraham!”
Genesis 28:13-14
English Standard Version (ESV)
13 And behold, the Lord stood above it[a] and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring. 14 Your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
Genesis 35:11-12
English Standard Version (ESV)
11 And God said to him, “I am God Almighty:[a] be fruitful and multiply. A nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall come from your own body.[b] 12 The land that I gave to Abraham and Isaac I will give to you, and I will give the land to your offspring after you.”
This cultural Mandate, first found in Gen. 1:26-28, and reiterated in Gen. 9:1, 7, to Noah, is a theme that winds its way throughout Redemptive history. For a Doctor of the Church to try to advance the idea that the Noahic covenant is firm ground to introduce the idea that God desires there to be a common realm ruled by Natural law is at best a contrived reading of the text and strains credulity to the breaking point. If, with the Noahic covenant, God established the common Kingdom, then that common Kingdom was established as well in the Abrahamic covenant as it too includes the themes of,
(1) God Blessed them
(2) Be fruitful and multiply
(3) fill the earth
(4) subdue the earth
(5) rule over … the earth
Now given this cursory analysis we see that Van Drunen’s work on the Noahic covenant has most certainly not demonstrated that there is a common realm ruled by Natural law wherein God’s Law-Word need not apply.

McAtee Contra Dr. Walker & The Godless Coalition — Part VII

This is part VII in my response to one of the dumbest articles ever written by a Seminary prof. His name is Andrew Walker. The reason it is so dumb is that all of this has been answered in the past and yet he puts pen to paper to recycle all this again as if he is being original. This article is posted on “The Godless Coalition” Platform.

AW wrote,

Within natural law, then, Theonomy ends up being unnecessary. Why? No biblical evidence suggests society can only obtain just conditions if a religious consensus is secured. Of course it’s desirable for religious consensus to exist, but to make that the standard of justice means that justice will always be elusive (and in fallen, penultimate societies, it is).

BLMc responds,

1.) That’s fine except pinning this much ability on Natural law is contrary to the Belgic Confession of Faith and so contrary to the Scriptures. To champion Natural law in this fashion diminishes the reality of the noetic effects of original sin. To champion Natural law in this fashion misses the reality that there is no consensus anywhere on natural law. To champion Natural law in this fashion misses the reality that for every philosophical school that exists there is a different and so competing codification of natural law. Which natural law are we going to navigate by? Appealing to natural law as the norm that norms all realm of nature norms is like appealing to jello to serve as gorilla glue to hold social-orders together. In brief it is a dream only an academic could believe is true.

2.) The second sentence in the paragraph above is mind boggling. Where does this man find “just conditions” where a religious consensus does not exist? Remember … “just conditions” can only be adjudicated as present as measured by the standard of God’s Word. Walker cannot appeal to the presence of “just conditions” in a social order unless those “just conditions” are “just conditions” as God’s Word defines “just conditions.”

Would Walker argue we have “just conditions” in our social order –a social order that certainly has no religious consensus? What society that did not have a religious consensus would Walker march in front of us as an example of a social-order where “just conditions” existed?

3.) Remember, as we have said here “just conditions” can only be measured by God’s standard of justice. Does Walker really want to argue that justice can be had apart from God’s standard of justice?

And there can be no doubt that in a fallen world, as even in a social-order that has a Christian consensus, perfect justice is never going to obtain. But to suggest that all because elusive justice as an absolute can’t be obtained we should therefore give up on pursuing justice as achieved by a Christian consensus and as measured by God’s standard is just foolishness.

AW wrote,

This is why God has given a natural law, which predates the Mosaic covenant and offers a better foundation for morality without that covenant’s specificity. We don’t need Israel’s civil law to inform us that such things as murder or bestiality are wrong. The covenant of creation mediated through natural revelation tells us this.

BLMc responds,

1.) Understand what Walker is saying is that it makes perfect sense that God’s chosen, covenant nation would get a moral law inferior to natural law. If Natural law is superior to God’s covenant law then why did God bother to give His covenant law to Israel? Maybe God gave them inferior covenant law as opposed to the superior Natural Law because God wanted His people to be inferior to the Nations around them who would have still have access to the superior Natural law?

2.) Indefinite Natural Law as limited by the noetic effects of the fall offers a better foundation for morality than God’s explicit law-Word? Right… And Andrew Walker could defeat Greg Bahnsen in a debate.

3.) I bet if I debated Andrew Walker I could prove, by using Natural Law, that Bestiality is perfectly normative.

AW wrote,

Again, Theonomy insists on applying the Old Testament’s penal code to today. But a better use of the biblical storyline grasps that modern nation-states are to pursue a just order and prudentially wise criminal sanctions—which is why, for example, it’s fine to imprison for offenses that Scripture prohibits without executing the offenders. We can look to other covenants in Scripture, such as the creation and the Noahic covenants, to arrive at a system of morality required for society—without believing that societies are just only insofar as they mimic Israel.

BLMc responds,

1.) Prisons are not Biblical and should be eschewed. Where does Walker find Natural law teaching that prisons are where we should storehouse and train criminals?

2.) “Just order” by whose standard? “Wise criminal sanctions” by whose standard?

3.) Where in the “biblical storyline” do we “grasp that modern nation-states are to pursue a just order and prudentially wise criminal sanctions” over against the penal code we find in Scripture as shaped by general equity? I want Walker to provide proof of this from the biblical storyline.

4.) The Noahic covenant tells us what the crime is for adultery? For sodomy? For rape? Chapter and verse please Andrew.

5.) The reality that theonomy admits that the general equity alters the application of the law means that theonomy isn’t seeking to mimic Israel

Pantheism, Monism & Oneism …. It’s Infiltration in Church & Culture

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.

This morning we are seeking a very fundamental fact that is being lost in the Church. Along the way we are going to be considering the implications of having lost that fundamental fact and how the loss of that fundamental fact is showing up both in the Church and in the broader culture.

The texts above teach a singular truth and that is that God as creator is distinct from man as the creature. Scripture teaches that there are two realities that we call the Creator creature distinction. God is other than man and man is distinct from God.

With the Creator-Creature distinction, because you have a distinct Creator and creature you also have other qualitative distinctions that are what they are because of how they have been named so by the Creator in His revealed Word. Genesis 1 is a long story of the Creator God making qualitative distinctions, and then God’s Law-Word goes on to make other qualitative distinctions which are definitely not social-constructs, though the Pantheist will insist that God’s qualitative distinctions are instead really just so many social-constructs.

This simple teaching of Gen. 1:1 is contrary to a Worldview that is growing in our Church and our culture. That contrary worldivew is called Pantheism. Contrary to the Biblical view that holds to the distinction of the Creator and creature distinction Pantheism as the etymology of the word teaches believes that all is God and God is all. Everything that is, is a part of God and the whole together makes for God. Pantheism teaches that is all reality is one reality and that one reality is god.

Dr. Peter Jones using one-ism as a synonym for pantheism explains it this way;

One-ism, (all-is-one) is an esoteric read on reality. It maintains that everything can be explained by everything else. There are no qualitative distinctions to be found in the universe. The world creates itself and humans are ‘co-creators’ along with everything else. In this system reality is One. Think of one big circle. Everything is contained within it; rocks, trees, planets, human beings — even God, as a kind of energy. Everything is connected to everything else. There is nothing outside the circle.

Two-ism (all is two) is an exoteric read on reality. It maintains that the world is made by a Creator who is uncreated and radically different from His creatures. There are two forms of existence: the created and the one who created it. The two, while deeply related, are qualitatively distinct. Think of two circles, connected but distinct and essentially different.”

Dr. Peter Jones 

One or Two; Seeing a World of Difference — pg. 88

What Dr. Jone’s labels as “One-ism,” is the idea where ontologically speaking, all reality participates in the same being. In most of these systems, one’s status in the social order is dependent on how much of that ultimate being they have unique to others who have less of this Oneist being.  The Mahat system of ancient Egypt was a Oneist system. The Pharoah was at the top of beingness and everyone descended from Pharoah had a lesser measure of being than Pharoah possessed. Animistic, Pantheistic, Hindu, are all Oneist systems.

 Since everything is one and so all share the same being the ability to make qualitative distinct distinctions is impossible. For example, if a man and a woman share in the same universal being who is to say that there exists a qualitative distinction between what, in a non-Oneist worldview, has always been understood to be “male,” and “female?” Since the Oneist worldview finds an impossibility to make qualitative distinctions we get the idea of sexual fluidity and/or fluctuating gender.

Indeed, in any consistent One-ist worldview any distinction has to be seen as temporary or arbitrary. In Jones’ words above, humans are co-creators and as co-creator humans create these putative ‘social constructs’ that provide qualitative distinctions that we now, as a more enlightened One-ist people, understand are no distinctions at all. We hear this same kind of language about nations.  Distinct Nations, it is increasingly said, like gender, sexuality, and age are merely social constructs created by human co-creators who are free to uncreate what they had previously arbitrarily created.

A similar idea that is often mentioned in tandem with Pantheism is the word Monism. Monism is more inclined to be found in philosophical discussions. Generally, Monism as a concept argues that all things originate from one source. Monism is commonly connected with atheism – the impossible belief that there is no God or ultimate being. Monism, like its partner pantheism denies that there is a God or ultimate being.

Now this may seem odd that while pantheism believes all is God and Monism believes there is no God they should be mentioned in the same breath. However, if everything is god then what does that also imply? It also implies that nothing is God. So, while pantheism and monism are starting from the opposite ends of the spectrum they end up much in the same place. They end up denying the Creator and Creature distinction. One denies it by saying all is Creator (God) and the other denies the Creator Creature distinction by saying none is god but the end result is the same.

Of course on implication of this denial of the Creator Creature distinction is that if all is God or none is God then the only one left to make distinctions between this and that is man. In such an existence whether or monism or pantheism the result is that whatever reality is embraced that reality has not objective essence since there is no God to give it an objective essence. Instead all of reality is what has today become a favorite buzz phrase … all reality is a social construct. If there is no Creator Creature distinction to provide objectivity then all distinctions between creature are arbitrary distinctions and so are social constructs – that is man made reality arrangements that should be recognized as man made constructs and treated as something that can be rearranged as we like. This includes the idea of “God.” For the pantheist who believes all is God or the monist who believes none is God, the idea of a Genesis 1:1 extra-mundane transcendent god is all just so much social construct. The same is true for all reality. Love, justice, gender, nation, race, beauty, mathematics, scientific laws, immorality, legal-order… it is all just a social-construct.

So, already we being to see how important Genesis 1:1 is as well as the rest of Scripture that teaches repeatedly that there exists a Creator-Creature distinction. Here are a few more Scriptures that emblazon that idea upon the reader;

For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together

Colossians 1:16-17

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

Hebrews 11:3

By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly people

II Peter 3:7

The youngest child here should be able to understand this idea that what Dr. Peter Jones has taken to calling “Oneism” and what we are identifying as Pantheism and Monism is utterly foolish. There remains and always will remain a Creator-Creature distinction.

But our culture is moving increasingly towards this monistic / pantheistic worldview.

I want to take a few moments tracing that out.

Every culture can be understood through its gatekeeper Institutions. Those are those Institutions by which a social order will organize itself. Those social-order Institutions communicate the Worldview of the people who are operating by them.

I list 7 of these civil-social Institutions. These are not written in stone. Some might come up with a different number. This was what I was taught almost 45 years ago now.

I am trying to communicate at this point that our gatekeeper civil-social Institutions have not become largely pantheistic as seen in the ability to make distinctions. The attempt to escape from distinctions is always a sign that there is pantheism / monism in the air. Remember, if we give up the Creator-Creature distinction all other distinctions are going to begin to unravel with the result that reality is seen as a social construct.

And we have begun to give up on distinctions as seen on our gate-keeper civil-social Institutions.


In the Church we began seeing that in the heretofore Conservative Churches when they began to give up on patriarchy as seen when they began to give up on the requirement in Scripture that a distinction between the natures of men and women be overthrown in favor of having ordained women in the pulpit. Innovative arguments were plastered together with spitballs and paper mache but something more here was happening. The crumbling of patriarchy that this move represented was a consequence of a denial of the Creator-Creature distinction which eventually led to the conviction that patriarchy is itself a social construct that can be rearranged. Since the move to allow women in the pulpit we have seen in the church the continued unraveling of distinctions so that now voices are being raised to allow side-b ordained sodomites in our pulpits. You see if the Creator-Creature distinction is denied then all other distinctions lose their gravitas because they are all merely social-constructs.

Because the Church, as one of the Cultural Gatekeepers has given up on the Creator-Creature distinction we are seeing the loss of patriarchy in the Church in favor of a distinction-less egalitarianism. If the Church had a high view of the Creator-Creature distinction it would not allow the dissolving of the distinctions between male and female that the Church when orthodox has always held as an Institution.

Along this line, in One-ist worldview, religions likewise begin to break down and converge. Hard Ecumenicalism and a refusal to embrace the rough edges that segregate one religion from another becomes the watchword. Unity (really uniformity) becomes the be all end all passion. If all is one then uniformity is obviously the highest virtue and anyone who disturbs the pursuit of uniformity is a pebble in the shoe that must be eliminated.

B.) Education

Harvard PhD student Kareem Carr’s recently had a dialogue about the abstract nature of mathematics and it was profiled by Popular Mechanics in an article entitled “Why Some People Think 2+2=5…and why they’re right.”

Carr’s “hope is that you understand the flexible relationship between our mathematical systems, our perceptions of the world, and the symbolic manipulations we use to reason about reality.

Note what is being said here is that mathematics is a social-construct. There is nothing in objective in mathematics. I submit that people would not be arriving at these conclusions without first concluding that the Creator-Creature distinction is passe.

You see if you give up on the Creator-Creature distinction the inevitable eventuality is that even Mathematics becomes a social-construct that can find everything equaling everything else.

C.) Arts – Media

Here I am simply going to name a few films that have championed this theme

The 2010 Box Office hit Avatar plied this pantheism theme

Marine Jake Sully joins forces with the Na’vi, Pandora’s natives, to defend their ecosystem—which is also their god. The blue humanoids revere all life, believing that each creature is interconnected and charged with divine energy. One main point of the film was to demonstrate the superiority of that Na’vi culture.

The 1996 film “Phenomenon” is a classic expression of this pantheist Worldview.

In this film the main character afflicted with a tumor suddenly discovers that all of life is one and in that discovery begins to harness that oneness in a host of different ways to demonstrate his genius.

The whole “Star Wars” series is characterized by the idea of the Force that envelopes all. The force does have a dark side but the dark side eventually returns to the good side of the force as seen in the redemption of Darth Vader.

D.) Family

Not only do we see the incapability of making hard gender and sexual qualitative distinctions we are increasingly seeing in some quarters of our culture the desire to erase the qualitative distinctions that once distinguished a child from the adult. There is a push in some quarters to sexualize the child arguing that the distinction between child and adult is unhelpful and arbitrary. On all these points we hear that heretofore universally accepted qualitative distinctions are merely “social constructs.” If this attempt to erase the distinction between the child and the adult then the whole idea of the “family unit” where parents are responsible to protect children begins to break down.

E.) Courts

This from a 21 March 2021 report of the NY Post

A Canadian man was arrested this week after violating a court order that banned him from speaking publicly about his son’s gender transition. The man — whose identity is reportedly under a publication ban by a British Columbia Court of Appeals to protect his child — was found in contempt of court and arrested Tuesday for calling the teen his daughter and publicly referring to him with the pronouns “she” and “her,” according to Post Millennial. The teenager was born as a female and reportedly identifies as transgender and prefers the use of male pronouns.

So, here we see the Canadian courts working legally to force upon us this pantheistic world and live view. Don’t doubt that it will soon be coming here.

G.) Science

The One-ist will, of course, appeal to “Science” as a support to their One-ist cause. However, what most people don’t realize is that convictions don’t change because of science but rather science changes because of our convictions. This is a huge subject and so I will merely recommend three books that explain what I am getting at here,

a.) The Structures of Scientific Revolutions — Thomas Kuhn
b.) The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God — Gordon H. Clark
c.) Hermeneutics and Science –Vern S. Poythress

An appeal to Science in order to prove One-ism will always be successful as coming from One-ist “Scientists.” Of course, if all is one, then anything and everything and nothing can be proven because no qualitative distinctions exist. One of the greatest failures of “Science” to give scientific heft to a distinctly non-scientific pursuit was the Soviet Union’s pursuit of Lysenkoism over Genetics. Lysenko insisted that he had overcome the qualitative distinction between Spring Wheat and Winter Wheat. He hadn’t and food shortages followed. “Science,” so-called, “proves” all kinds of things that just aren’t so. One-ism makes it easier for “Science” to do just that.

All of this to say that Science is only as good as the Theology that it is dependent upon and of which it is an expression.

H.) Politics

The Pantheistic worldview has hit the jackpot in the Biden administration with the appointment of a Trannie as a under-secretary of Health as well as officials who defend the idea of men competing with women as “women” in sports.

The demonstration of this mad pursuit for Pantheist uniformity is commonly seen in the Revolutionary. We see it in Church history whether it was the pantheistic leveling of the Bogomils, Cathar, Albigensians, and Ana-Baptists, or later the Levellers, Diggers, and Quakers. Whether it was expressed culturally with the Phrygian cap in the French Revolution with the common leveling greeting to one and all, regardless of status or rank of “citoyenne,”  whether it is the universal leveling greeting of “comrade” during the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, or whether it was the ubiquitous leveling Mao suit found in the post-Communist Chinese Revolution, the Pantheist worldview passionately desires to press upon people uniformity. Uniformity in Pantheistic in slovenly thought, uniformity in slovenly clothing, uniformity in Pantheistic speech pattern. If all is one then all are interchangeable uniform cogs in the Pantheistic world.

Actually, in a genuinely Pantheistic world, as consistently followed, language and communication would be utterly impossible since qualitatively distinct meaning is impossible in a consistently One-ist world. Perhaps this explains God’s confusing of the language at Babel. Babel was perhaps the greatest attempt to build a One-ist social order ever.

George Orwell’s novel, “1984” is a wonderful fiction that describes the pursuit of Revolutionary One-ism.

According to Bouwsma the idea of God’s creating qualitative distinctions was something well understood by John Calvin,

The positive corollary of Calvin’s loathing of mixture was his approval of boundaries, which separate one thing from another. He attributed boundaries to God Himself: God had established the boundaries between peoples, which should, therefore, remain within the space assigned to them … ‘Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section,’ Calvin observed, ‘men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries.’”

W.J. Bouwsma

John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait — p.34-35

I highly recommend reading Dr. Peter Jones’ books. He provides scintillating analysis of how the culture and the Church are slipping faster and faster into One-ist presuppositions that are not Christian in their origin. Postmodernism, for example, is a child of One-ist ideology. Postmodernism teaches that no grand narratives exist and that all personal narratives are social constructs. Reality is malleable. Qualitative distinctions do not exist except as man subjectively creates them.

When One-ism slips into the Church the traditional language is retained but emptied of its original Two-ist meaning and is re-filled with One-ist pagan content. Dr. Jones’, in is “One or Two,” demonstrates how the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 deconstructs One-ism while making the case that our church and culture is increasingly falling into Oneism.


We must return to the Cross though once again. The Cross itself demonstrates again the Creator-Creature distinction. There was the God-Man making satisfaction to the extra-mundane personal God in order to pay for the sins of man the Creature. There is that distinction. All is NOT One. God as the Creator must be propitiated for the sinse of man the Creature.

The Cross explains why we must insist upon this Creator-Creature distinction. Apart from a worldview that embraces this distinction between the Creator and the Creature there is no communicating the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We see this kind of evangelism in Paul’s work on Mar’s Hill in Acts 17. There as he is giving the Gospel he is insisting on the stupidity of the Greeks for their panentheism. “They even had an altar to an unknown God,” just in case they missed identifying all the gods in their panentheistic world.

The Gospel only makes sense in a Christian world and the Gospel being preached naked without the context of a twoist world and life view will only come as a conundrum and a curio to the pagan pantheist. In speaking up Biblical Christianity we must provide the worldview context that allows the Gospel to make sense. We cannot preach the Gospel into a pantheist world which has no hands or feet in order by which to grasp the Christ crucified. A crucified Christ apart from the context of the Creator-Creature distinction makes absolutely zero sense.

This is why we must not only give the Cross but we must preach the worldview context in which the Cross can make sense.

Not Getting R. Scott Clark’s Inability to Get The Obvious

“Practically, what does it mean to speak of transforming softball or orchestral music or any other cultural endeavor? Why cannot softball simply be what it is, recreation? What is distinctively Christian about “Christian art” or “Christian history” or Christian math”? I understand that the rhetoric is sacrosanct (a shibboleth, as it were) but what does it signify? What are the particulars? I understand that when we get to ultimate matters, e.g., theology, there is a distinctively Christian view of things and there is certainly a Christian interpretation of the significance of things. That is a Christian worldview properly understood but what does it mean to speak of transforming penultimate things? Is the neo-Kuyperian view related to the Anabaptist vision of nature and grace and if not, how are they essentially different? What if Leonard Verduin intuited something?”

Dr. R. Scott Clark 

Recently, someone left the link to a brief Clark essay wherein this quote was found in the comments section on Iron Ink. The commenter thought this essay proved that Clark was making progress. I disagree.

Clark objects to the idea of grace transforming nature (and so culture) preferring instead to say that grace renews nature in salvation. Clark desires to keep the renewing power of grace constrained to humans as it pertains to their salvation. However, this seems to be a constrained view of reality. After all, it is grace renewed and saved people who are the ones who create culture (an embodiment of nature). If grace renews nature in salvation then grace is going to renew everything that those salvifically renewed people are going to create in culture. One simply can’t have grace renewing nature in salvation without that renewal getting into everything the renewed and salvation visited person touches.  The products of culture, after all, don’t come into being apart from the renewed or unrenewed people who create them. I honestly don’t understand why this is so difficult for R2K Clark and his R2K buds.

Then Clark lists several, what I take are supposed to be real stumpers. as to how grace renews nature (grace transforms culture). Let’s take these one by one.

1.) Softball

I am going to use baseball as an example but it would apply to softball as well. Baseball just gives me more at-hand examples.

In 2017 the Houston Astros (Baseball) won the World Series. Sometime afterward it was revealed that the Astros won the World Series by the art of cheating as they were stealing signs. Several key team leaders lost their jobs and the team itself was fined $5 million for this cheating scandal. Allow me to propose to Dr. Clark that Christian baseball vis-a-vis non-Christian baseball would be less inclined to have this problem.

If Dr. Clark doesn’t like this example we could note that non-Christian baseball has seen performing-enhancing drugs be a huge issue in the recent past providing a barrier to Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmerio, and Roger Clemens gaining entry to the Baseball Hall of Fame. They are each in essence guilty of playing non-Christian baseball.

We could go on to give examples of Ty Cobb sharpening his spikes so that when he slid into 2nd base he would cut up the Shortstop covering the bag. We could write about Pete Rose paying the penalty for playing non-Christian baseball by violating the rules against gambling while a player.

Let’s pretend that genuine Reformation visited Major League Baseball. Does Dr. Clark actually believe that grace would not renew nature so that grace transformed baseball culture?

2.) Orchestral Music

Francis Schaeffer in this work  “The God Who is There,” spends some time looking at the Orchestral music of composer John Cage and demonstrates how Cage’s orchestral music was a declaration that the cosmos was the product of time plus chance. Cage’s music communicated that there was no meaning. This would be non-Christian Orchestral music and it is again difficult to understand how Clark can find this concept difficult. Is what Cage did in music akin to what Bach did in music?

3.) Art

Clark wants to know what makes Christian art, Christian. First, let us note there that the artist as God’s image-bearer cannot avoid getting their worldview into their art. Every piece of art means something and the meaning of that Art is going to determine whether the art in question is Christian or non-Christian or a mixture of both.

Second, art typically aims at beauty. Beauty is an objective category as existing in different genres. Art exists along an objective scale in those different genres of ugly to beautiful. The more beautiful a piece of art is the more Christian that art is and vice-versus.

It would seem that when we compare the modern art of a woman pushing paintballs out of her vagina onto a canvas (yes… that is a thing) and compare that to Rembrandt’s “The Night Watch,” or Monet’s “Water Lilies,” we would have to say that inasmuch as Rembrandt and Monet were going after beauty their work more closely approached Christian than pushing paintballs out of a human orifice on to a canvas.

4.) History

This one is a little breathtaking as history is really nothing but theology told in another venue. Does Clark not realize that a period of history as handled by the Marxist Historians Charles and Mary Beard is going to look and read very differently than that same period of history as covered by the Christian Historian C. Gregg Singer?

History is Christian or not Christian depending on the presuppositions that the historian has who is approaching the time period they are writing upon. I expect Nesta Webster or Edmund Burke as Christians to tell me a different story about the French Revolution than I expect to be told by Simon Schama or Albert Sobul. When I read the accounts of the American era of Reconstruction I expect a different report from the Dunning School than I expect to read from the Marxist “historian” Eric Foner.

5.) Math

Clark in all likelihood believes that Math is impervious to Christian or non-Christian categories. However perhaps Clark hasn’t heard of one Kareem Carr?

Harvard PhD student Kareem Carr’s recently had a dialogue about the abstract nature of mathematics and it was profiled by Popular Mechanics in an article entitled “Why Some People Think 2+2=5…and why they’re right.”

Carr’s “hope is that you understand the flexible relationship between our mathematical systems, our perceptions of the world, and the symbolic manipulations we use to reason about reality.

Note what is being said here is that mathematics is a social construct. There is nothing in objective in mathematics.  Any such reasoning gives us non-Christian mathematics.

So, pace Dr. Clark we do see that these matters can be handled either in a Christian manner or a non-Christian manner. Frankly, it is bewildering to me at least how any educated man could not readily see this. It’s like not readily noticing the oddity of tits on a boar.

However, the oddity does not end here for Dr. Clark. He goes on to say above that;

“I understand that when we get to ultimate matters, e.g., theology, there is a distinctively Christian view of things and there is certainly a Christian interpretation of the significance of things.”

What else is baseball, orchestral music, art, history, and math but “things?” And if they are “things” then why should there not be a Christian view of these things? Another theologian who shared the same last name as our erstwhile Escondido novice wrote a book a generation ago titled “A Christian View of Men and Things.” Gordon Clark realized that all things were at their heart theological. This is something that seems to escape Dr. R. Scott Clark. Maybe Scott should pick up Gordon’s book and give it a read. Maybe then he would understand?



I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends – One Non-Caucasian’s View On Race

The article below was sent to me by one of my non-caucasian friends who lives in another country who is a kinist. (Yes, I have many kinist friends who are not white. That’s a secret we racists try not to let others know.) [That’s a joke for the humor impaired]. 

In this article, Perry Koshy looks at what the Image of God means in its fullest ramifications. Now, remember this man would be considered “black” were he to move to America. So, don’t get mad at white people for what my “black” friend and brother has to say.


The Image of God does not exist in a vacuum but within the context of the social order created by the Lord, as expressed in the family, church, and nation.

As seen continually throughout Scripture, God’s covenant with individual men is never contracted in the isolation of their personal relationship but rather in terms of their family and nation.

How God covenants with man reveals the essential nature of the Imago Dei. And what we see is that the Image of God in man does not exist without both immediate and extended kindred and blood-tie ramifications.

The current evangelical focus on the individual aspect of the Image of God above all else and without reference to the familial and ethnic links intrinsic to God’s Image is ultimately to dehumanize all men.
The evangelical church’s break with the numerous Divine laws governing man’s relationship and responsibilities with his kindred, both immediately familial and ethnically, is to declare a fundamental change in the once-for-all-created Image of God in mankind. A change in God’s law, as opposed to the fulfillment of foreshadowing ceremonies in Christ, is to suggest an essential shift not only in God’s character but in man himself as a reflection of God. But Scripture declares the very opposite. God’s Law is unchanging and therefore the structure of Christian social order remains the same.
A man’s personal relationship with God is predicated upon and subsists only within his relationship with his kindred and nation.

The example of Achan in the book of Joshua aptly drives home this point. Achan’s personal sin, with his family’s complicity, had national consequences.

The commonality amongst all three abstract institutions was the grounding in a shared blood and kinship.
Apostatized Western Christianity seeks to divorce individual men from the institutional continuum of God’s Image as expressed in their particular families and nations (i.e. ethnicity) and make them interchangeable among families and nations by insisting that race is merely an artificial construct.
This is a rebellion against the specificity and distinction of the Imago Dei as expressed amongst the diverse kindreds and races of mankind. If God is displeased at hybrids among animals, how much more is He displeased at the casual dismissal and uncoupling from the distinctions among races He sovereignly ordained?
To insist that the elect are redeemed in such a way as to remove all boundaries of race and kindred in terms of marital union and migration patterns is to remove them from the responsibility of operating in terms of their own family and race. And as we have seen, the only covenant God enacts with men is one in which their own family and nation are included in their responsibility.  This renders men impotent in their service to the Lord because they have thrown off the yoke of the only social structure in which it is ordained to serve Him! Having erased the continuum of identity from man to nation, individuals are left meaningless. To transcend ethnic and familial identity is to transcend the specificity of being human but such a thing is impossible. The life of men is not lived in the absolutized abstraction of generalities but in the clear delineation of blood ties.
Moreover, and this is amply proven in the terrifying dysfunction of both Western families and nations, to misunderstand the identity-defining nature of family and nation is to misunderstand the nature of the individual – for all three form an unbreakable circle of God-ordained existence.
And if the Church does not properly understand mankind and the Biblical social order that defines God’s Image, the Church is incapable of preaching an effectual salvation.
What the Church fails to grasp is that salvation to an individual is the budding establishment of God’s covenant with that person’s specific family and people group. This is the model set forth by Adamic, Noahic, and Abrahamic covenants and is reaffirmed continuously throughout Scripture.
To allow intermarriage amongst distinct races or ethnic groups is to disrupt the blood ties that form the basis for God’s covenant and social order in which an individual operates. It is the denial and rejection of the Lord’s sovereign bonds of kindred identity and creates confusion between the different races covenantal relationships artificially joined together.
Interracial marriage is guilty of the sin of presumption. It presumes that individuals, coming from distinct nations differing greatly in the specifics of God’s unique relationship with each people, will receive God’s blessing as they draw together two separate histories and identities, families, and nations into a union of unlike realities.
As a closing note, to address those who would point to exceptions:
The success of some mixed-race marriages and individuals no more proves the general wisdom of such exceptions anymore than surviving cancer proves the goodness of having it in the first place.
Men and women may very well find happiness in new partners after divorce but that hardly makes divorce something to be sought out as a normal practice. Even when there is legitimate cause and the innocent spouse is able to restore a godly order in his or her life, there are still real consequences attendant to the sin/crime that caused it.
Interracial marriages are much the same. Success is possible but there are still inescapable realities to the loss of kindred and racial identity that the offspring will suffer, not to mention a host of other variables.