McAtee Would Like A Word With Americans Hankering For Pluralism V

“There are no national peoples of God now and no national covenants. All those expired with the death of Christ and, as the Westminster Divines said, with “the state of that people” (WCF 19.4). This is why theonomy (i.e., the abiding validity of the judicial laws in exhaustive detail) is a non-starter for anyone who affirms the Westminster Standards (or who would be Reformed).”

R. Scott Idiot
R2K Fan Boy

1.) Pssst… Scott … Dude … Did you forget that the Westminster standards also included a reality called “the general equity?” If you’re going to quote the WCF Scott you might not want to quote it deceptively;

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.

2.) Next, if anyone is so jejune so as to believe that Theonomy is a non starter for anyone Reformed I would advise them to get a copy of Martin Foulner’s little book, “Theonomy and the Westminster Confession.” Clark is just in magnificent error (but what’s new) when he says that “theonomy is a non-starter for anyone who affirms the WCF.” Foulner demonstrates that in his book with a series of quotations proving that many of the Westminster Divines would have been theonomy friendly.

3.) Does Scott realize that it was a bunch of 1648 Westminsterians who signed the “Solemn League and Covenant for Reformation and Defence of Religion, the Honor and Happiness of the King, and the Safety of the Three Kingdoms, of Scotland, England, and Ireland.” These original Confessionalists didn’t interpret this document the way the interloper Clark is interpreting it.

If we lived in a sane world during a sane epoch the man would be stripped of his credentials.

McAtee Would Like A Word With Americans Hankering For “Pluralism” IV

“It is the theocrats who tend to blur the lines between the canonical period of history—that is, when redemption was being worked out and special revelation was given—and national Israel and the American Republic.”

R. Scott Idiot
Famous Anabaptist

So, when the Scripture teaches,

Psalm 144:15 Blessed are the people of whom this is so; blessed are the people whose God is the LORD.

And

Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound: they shall walk, O LORD, in the light of thy countenance. Psalm 89:15

And

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people He has chosen as His inheritance! Psalm 33:12

We are to understand, per Dr. R. Scott Idiot, that this only could ever apply to OT Israel and that any people group today who have God as the Lord are not blessed? We are to understand that it is not possible for God to have a national people in 2023?

Yes, we understand that the Church is uniquely “God’s people” but that in no way suggests that a people as a people could not swears oaths of fealty unto God so as to make it clear that they take Him for God and will submit to him as His people.

Are we really to believe that when Jesus comes and dies and fulfills all the anticipations of the OT one of the virtues of the new and better covenant is that people are no longer blessed whose God is the Lord?

Consider here that when Clark “reasons” like this he is reasoning like a Dispensationalist and indeed one might even say that Clark is reasoning like a Marcionite. The God of the OT. per Clark, is a different God from the NT. In the OT, per Clark, God had one set of ethical standards for His people but in the NT God has given up with a revealed law for his people and has now punted to a thing called Natural law. Naturally this is what makes the new and better covenant new and better (sarcasm off).

Keep in mind that in the commentary of the Heidelberg catechism Ursinus could write on Natural Law,

Ursinus in his Commentary on Heidelberg (p. 506) writes,

“Furthermore, although natural demonstrations teach nothing concerning God that is false, yet men, without the knowledge of God’s word, obtain nothing from them except false notions and conceptions of God; both because these demonstrations do not contain as much as is delivered in his word, and also because even those things which may be understood naturally, men, nevertheless, on account of innate corruption and blindness, receive and interpret falsely, and so corrupt it in various ways.”

Zacharias Ursinus

Commentary on Heidelberg Catechism

Clearly Ursinus did not agree with Clark on the power of Natural Law as a standard for a social order.

Finally, as all men are theocrats even if they are so stupid that they can’t realize that Clark himself is doing all kinds of line blurring along with everyone else.

The man is a freaking idiot.

McAtee Would Like a Word With Americans Hankering For “Pluralism” III

“It is ironic because as an anti-theocrat (i.e., an ideological American), I argue that we have agreed together, perhaps even covenanted, to be governed by the ‘laws of nature’ and of ‘nature’s God.’

Dr. R. Scott Idiot

R2K Idiot Savant

Bret responds,

Please understand dear reader that the phrases “laws of nature” and of ‘nature’s God’ only make sense in the context of a decidedly Christian worldview. In other words the unbeliever who is operating with a worldview at war with Christ will not access the same ‘laws of nature’ and of ‘nature’s God’ as Scott pretends. Non-Christians are operating on a different presuppositional pivot point and as such they are not going to come to the same conclusions on the ‘laws of Nature’ and of “nature’s God.” This is why R2K’s Natural Law can never work.

But Scott and all of R2K is too stupid to get that.

McAtee Would Like A Word With Americans Hankering For Pluralism II

“Those of us who were born before 1970 have lived through the death of Christendom in the USA. In 2023, we are living through a radical postmodern cultural revolution enforced by governments, HR departments, corporations, and creators of popular culture.”

R. Scott Clark
R2K Idiot

Bret Responds,

1.) Scott, along with his idiotic and Anabaptist Reformed friends are forever saying that Christian culture is literally not possible yet here he is saying that we once lived in Christendom. So, if we once lived in Christendom then why is Christian culture literally not possible. R2K has always been a feast of contradictions and here we see yet another. The man is an idiot and should be mocked as such.

2.) It is true that those born before 1970 have lived through the death of Christendom in the USA. However, it is also true that we have lived through a time where another “dom” (Humanism-dom) has gained the ascendency. My problem with Scott and R2K is that they refuse to recognize that “dom” (a religious Kingdom of some sort) is an inescapable category. R2K is forever saying that it is not possible for Cultures to be Christian and yet they refuse to admit that culture is always going to be driven by some religion, whether that religion is openly owned by the State or not.

It just bothers the heebie jeebies out of me that R2K insists that culture can’t be Christian while at the same time insisting that culture is not a byproduct of some religion or faith.

McAtee Would Like A Word With Americans Hankering For Pluralism I

The next few entries are going to be answering a really idiotic blogpost entry by our favorite R2K Idiot, Dr. R. Scott Clark. You can access the article at Scottie boys blog “Heidelblog” under the entry, “Samuel would like a word with Americans hankering for a king.”

Samuel Would Like A Word With Americans Hankering For A King

I argue in the pieces that follow that Dr. R. Scott Clark is an Idiot. Because I argue that I want to give the definition of Idiot that I am using;

 Idiot — a person affected with extreme intellectual disability. I believe that under this definition it is indisputable that Clark is an idiot. I would apply “Idiot” to all those who champion Radical Two Kingdom theology.

Here is Dr. R. Scott Clark (he of R2K fame) proving he knows even less about US History than he does church history;

“To be sure, there were always Americans who did not support the Revolution, who doubted the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and were simply never Americans ideologically (in that they thought that there should be an established national church). ”

Bret Responds,

Please keep in mind that American’s had no problem with established churches. At the time of the Revolution 9 of the 13 colonies had established churches. After the Revolution 7 of 13 had established churches. Keep also in mind that while the Nation as such did not have an established church it decidedly had a religious faith and that religious faith was Christianity. (See David W. Hall’s book; The Genevan Reformation and the American Founding)

Second, keep in mind, as I keep trying to tell Scott that an established National Church is a inescapable category. Our current Established National Church is located in every community in America and has scores of millions lavished upon it every year. That Established Church can be found in every government school in America where the catechesis there tops anything offered in any non established church in America. In those American established churches that Scott says does not exist you’ll find Priests (teachers) catechisms (text books) hymns (music classes in elementary schools) distribution of sacraments (free State meals) and every other accouterment of religion and faith that one can find.

Hence, we once again see that listening to R. Scott Clark on matters of Church and State is akin to listening to Jeffrey Dahmer on cooking tips.