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

“Should the USA decide to follow the monarchist theocrats, an outcome that is beyond unlikely, they should not delude themselves into thinking that the outcome will be any different than what Samuel predicted for the Israelites. Samuel said what he did because this is what monarchs do:

1.) Draft your sons (and your daughters) to fight their wars
2.) Draft hitherto free citizens into slave labor
3.) Draft hitherto free citizens to become household servants and slaves
4.) Take the best of American agriculture and production for themselves and their court”

R, Scott Idiot
R2K Idiot Savant

Bret Responds,

1.) I don’t know if Scott keeps up with the newspaper or if he studies history (it sure doesn’t look like it) but someone should probably tell him that we are living Samuel’s best warning now.

2.) Someone ought to tell Scottie to remember the promise made to the people when Samuel presided over the installation of Saul as king.

1Sa 12:13-14 “Now therefore, here is the king whom you have chosen, whom you have asked for, and behold, the LORD has set a king over you. “If you will fear the LORD and serve Him, and listen to His voice and not rebel against the command of the LORD, then both you and ALSO THE KING WHO REIGNS OVER YOU WILL FOLLOW THE LORD YOUR GOD.

2.) So we see that Scott needs to give a little context so that we can see that theocracy does not always end up in evil. Context however  forces the antinomian deceiver,  to abandon his eschatological pessimism and hatred of Theonomy and recognize himself and his “theology” as God’s just punishment on an rebellious people.

In point of fact we learn from Deuteronomy that God always envisioned a time when His people would have a king showing that the problem was never with a King but the problem was with wicked hearts set against God.

Deuteronomy 17:14 “When you have come to the land that the Lord your God is about to give you, and you have taken possession of it and have settled in it, then you will say, ‘I will appoint a king over me like all the nations around me.’ 15 You will certainly set a king over you, whom the Lord your God will choose from among your relatives, but you must not place a foreign king over you who is not from your relatives. 16 He must not amass horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt to obtain more horses, because the Lord said you must never return that way again. 17 Also, he must not accumulate wives for himself (otherwise, his affection will become diverted), nor accumulate for himself excessive quantities of[a] silver and gold. 18 When he occupies his royal throne, he must make a copy of this Law for himself from a scroll used by the Levitical priests. 19 It is to remain with him the rest of his life so he may learn to fear the Lord his God and observe all the words of this Law and these statutes, in order to fulfill them. 20 He is not to exalt himself over his relatives, nor turn aside from the commandment—neither to the right nor to the left—so that he and his sons may reign long in Israel.”

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.