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.
McAtee Would Like A Word With Americans Hankering For “Pluralism” IV
Famous Anabaptist
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
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.
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).
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
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.
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.’
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.
McAtee Would Like A Word With Americans Hankering For Pluralism II
McAtee Would Like A Word With Americans Hankering For Pluralism I
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;