Crackerjack Ph.D recipient in History

Bret responds,

1.) The great Supreme Court justice Joseph Story declared that Christianity was in fact a necessary component of the English common-law tradition, and offered the “only solid basis of civil society.” Therefore, inasmuch as America was based on the English common-law tradition, in that much it is indisputable that America had Christianity in a defacto sense established as our established religion. Having said that, allow me to say that only a pagan would applaud the notion that a nation should have no established religion. Would someone tell Scott that the first amendment breaks the first commandment?

2.) Why did they reject the idea of a National Church? They rejected it because 9 of the 13 states already had a National Church in their sovereign states and so creating a National Church would have been a poison pill in any attempt to bring into formation these united (sovereign) States of America. They did NOT reject a national Church because they were all a bunch of Baptists or R2K (but I repeat myself) who thought that National Church BAD.

3.) The fact that through the unconstitutional doctrine of incorporation that states that parts of the bill of rights limits the states when the bill of rights was insisted upon by the states in order to limit the FEDS, so that now the FEDS can use the doctrine of incorporation to limit the States in no wise means that such convoluted reasoning should have ever been accepted. Only specialists in contradiction like R. Scott Idiot could ever say that the doctrine of incorporation was a good idea.

4.) Finally, let us note that any idea that this constitutional experiment has worked is laughable in light of any knowledge of US History. Did the Constitution work for our social order with the war of Northern Aggression? Did the constitutional experiment work in keeping marriage defined as marriage (Obergefell vs. Hodges)? Did the constitutional experiment work in stopping all the constitutionally illegal wars of the 20th century? Did the constitutional experiment work to save 50 million babies? The whole damn constitutional experiment has NOT worked unless you belong to the left. R. Scott Clark is a man of the left. He is an Enlightenment Man.

And here is R. Scott Clark applauding those fallen men and their fallen work.

Postscript — Despite the failures noted above I believe the fault lies not with the Constitution, which I do believe by in large is a Christian document. The failure with the constitutional experiment is because fallen men have wrenched it to unconstitutional ends.

R2K Idiot Savant

Bret responds,

1.) Americans were never revolutionaries. Americans were counter-Revolutionaries. See C. Gregg Singer’s “A Theological Interpretation of American History.” (Psst … Scott … Dude; that means Americans were revolting against the Revolutionary actions of the British Parliament.)

2.) The Declaration was in error when it said that “the authority of the government is derived from the consent of the governed.” This is one of the weaknesses of the Declaration. This is humanist reasoning. Are you a humanist Scott? Don’t answer that… we already know the answer. In all case the authority of government is derived from the reality of God and His Law-Word.

4.) Take the best of American agriculture and production for themselves and their court”

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.

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

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.