R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology)

The Common Ground Between R2K & Doctrinaire Communism

“The (Russian) Orthodox Church already had martyrs to Communism: but Patriarch Tikhon (1865 – 1925), for all his earlier courage, was not to be among them. In June, the Communists broke him. He signed a statement declaring that his treatment had been justified because of his anti-Soviet attitudes, and that he had not suffered in confinement. He made this formal avowal of surrender: ‘I have completely adopted the Soviet platform, and consider that the Church must be non-political.’

But the blood of Orthodox Archbishop Benjamin and Catholic Msgr. Budkiewicz cried out from the ground against that.”

Warren H. Carroll
The Rise & Fall of Communist Revolutions – p. 164

What is interesting in this quote is that the Russian Communists, after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 were insisting that the Churches in Russia must be, by way of doctrinal commitment, be non-political — that is to say they must not be involved in speaking to state policy.

In turn, the interest in that is found in the fact that such a Communist policy is the same policy that the R2K chaps from Escondido (Westminster West) and elsewhere in the Reformed denominational world insist must be the policy of the Reformed church. So, both the Communists and the Radical Two Kingdom “theologians” like David Van Drunen, R. Scott Clark, Michael Horton, J. V. Fesko, D. G. Hart, Chris Gordon, T. David Gordon, Kevin DeYoung, ad infinitum, each agree that the Church must be non-political. (Never mind the consideration that if the church is non-political it is at that point following a extraordinarily political path.)

The Communists tortured Patriarch Tikhon in order to get his mind right on the subject of the “non-political nature of the church” and R2K does all it can to close the door against those who defy their Communist skubala that insists that the Church is necessarily obligated to be “non-political.”

Exposing the R2K Agenda of Dr. Kevin De Young’s In His Interpretation of the WCF

The duties required in the Second Commandment are…the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.

Westminster Larger Catechism 108

It seems pretty clear from the above that those clergy who subscribe to the WCF, are required to be adamantly opposed to a “principled pluralism” that allows for all the gods to be in the public square and yet Rev. Kevin DeYoung can write;

‘”Gone from WCF 23:3 in the American revision are any references to the civil magistrate’s role in suppressing heresies and blasphemies, in reforming the church, in maintaining a church establishment, and in calling and providing for synods…. In its place, the American revision lists four basic functions for the civil magistrate relative to the church…(4) protect all people so no one is injured or maligned based on his or her religion or lack of religion.”

With this quote above DeYoung puts the WCF in contradiction to itself. De Young would interpret WCF 23:3 as in direct contradiction to WLC 108, and while not trying to be too persnickety, Dr. Rev. De Young also, via his interpretation of the American revised WCF 23:3 put the Westminster Confession in contradiction with itself in WCF 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.

WCF 19.4

19:4 teaches that a general equity relating to the judicial laws remain and further teaches that Christian Magistrates are required (obliged) to enforce that general equity where it remains. R2K chaps like Kevin De Young don’t like that idea because it doesn’t fit with their pursuit of a body politic devoted to principled pluralism (polytheism) with its god named “Natural Law,” as represented by the priesthood of government officials who interpret the will and Law-word of the god “Natural Law.”

That I am correct about this R2K Tom-foolery is seen in a quote from team R2K Reformed clergy member Dr. R. Scott Clark

“All orthodox Christians affirm that God’s moral law is enduring and binding to all people—to deny that is antinomianism. What is at stake here is the magistrate’s role in enforcing that moral law. The framers of the Statement (Statement On Christian Nationalism and the Gospel) have a plan, to which we have not yet arrived, but it entails some enforcement of the first table, and thus is theocratic.”

R. Scott Clark
Sub-Christian Nationalism? (Part 4)

Clark here is raising the horrors in the idea that the Magistrate might actually enforce the 1st table of God’s moral law. The danger he is bemoaning is “theocracy.” Like De Young, Dr. Clark desires a principled pluralism (polytheism) for the body politic with the god named “Natural Law” sitting as the God over all the gods. This god “Natural Law” has his word discovered and implemented by the governmental and bureaucratic priesthood who do his bidding.

DeYoung, along with Clark, and all the sycophants of R2K are insisting that the revised WCF now yields a required “principled pluralism,” and yet if DeYoung’s reading is correct on 23:3 then WLC 108 must be either revised or ignored. Note that WLC 108 explicitly says; “according to each one’s place and calling.” Clearly, Christian magistrates are being told that according to their place and calling they are to disapprove, detest, and oppose all false worship by removing said false worship and yet R2K in its pursuit of a non theocratic (principled pluralism / polytheism) theocracy (ruled by the god named Natural Law as interpreted by the governmental and bureaucratic priesthood) is denying their own confession with their errant theology.

DeYoung, wearing the uniform of team R2K is seeking to officially change the WCF from a Christian confession to a polytheistic confession. I say “officially,” because most Presbyterians already treat the WCF as a confession that requires the magistrate to rule over a polytheistic body-politic.

Refuting Rev. Chris Gordon’s “Babel Christianity”

This showed up in my newsfeed today as coming from Rev. Chris Gordon. I find it so interesting because both Gordon and his conversational partner here, Dr. Stephen Wolfe embrace Thomistic Natural Law thinking and yet they are vehemently disagreeing on the effects Christianity should have when landing among different social orders. So, they are both Thomists, philosophically, and yet they are at distinct loggerheads here.

A couple more things, first, Rev. Gordon teed this up by writing;

“Most important moment in my CN discussion with Stephen Wolfe:”

Chris clearly thinks he had Wolfe on the ropes here in this part of the interview.

Chis Gordon: Most people in CA are mocha, a mix of different ethnicities, do these people have a homeland?

Stephen Wolfe: California is unique though. If I stayed in CA…I don’t know. I bring this stuff up because of the importance of it…do you have a homeland? When I hear the stories of old CA…horseback riding in hills of Napa, 22 riffles…there is a sense of loss…

Bret Interjects:

1.) Gordon here clearly concedes that race and ethnicity are realities. After all, you can’t get to a “mocha, a mix of different ethnicities” without acknowledging that there were different ethnicities that existed that are now mixed.

2.) Second, I would say that if the decided majority of California was a thorough mix of different ethnicities than the homeland for those who were a thorough mix of different ethnicities would be California. It would be the homeland for those who had successfully embraced the Babel project that God judged in Genesis 11. California would be the homeland of the multicultural, multiracial and multi-faith people.

3.) Notice Wolfe’s response is to say that the previous people who occupied California have been run out by the new multicult crowd who now owns California, and that there is a certain sadness about that. I don’t know how anybody could disagree that it is sad when a particular people group is extinguished in favor of another people group whose bond is established by the fact that they have no bond except the bond of no bond.

Chris Gordon; The great message of the Christian gospel is I get to tell these people the church is the people and place, you have your soil, you have your place on the kingdom of God. Is this really the message that Christians want to give people, that previous generations lost all that was good with horses and guns, and that all of these many different “Johnny come lately” people groups really don’t belong with us? Is that our message, as Christians? Or might we seek to live in peace and harmony in this age together but with a distinctively Christian message that elevates us to a better salvific good, that God does give people a true homeland together in his kingdom, the church as Christ’s body, tearing down walls of hostility until we reach the heavenly land together of a multitude of nations worshipping God?

Bret responds,

1.) I’ll start at the end of Chris’ peroration here. One simply cannot have a multitude of nations worshipping God in the heavenly land if those nations have been bred out of existence, so that all that exists is a polyglot Babel stew in the land that is not yet heaven.

2.) As to this sentiment by Chris:

“The great message of the Christian gospel is I get to tell these people the church is the people and place, you have your soil, you have your place on the kingdom of God.”

All I can say is that it is contradictory to what John Calvin taught;

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

The Reformed faith does welcome all to “taste and see that the Lord is good.” It does not say that there is no grace for the mulatto, mestizo, or whasian. All men everywhere are commanded to repent and if they do repent they are members of the Kingdom of God. However, just as repenting doesn’t change one’s gender, so repenting doesn’t change one’s ethnicity or race. Differences remain and those differences should be acknowledged.

I have a friend who Pastors a church in a large urban area. This church is comprised of different ethnicities and races and yet this Pastor friend tells me that he repeatedly tells his flock, from the pulpit, that even though they are all one in Christ that when it comes to marriage they should not intermarry because race/ethnicity matters.

3.) As to this portion by Rev. Gordon;

Is this really the message that Christians want to give people … that all of these many different “Johnny come lately” people groups really don’t belong with us? Is that our message, as Christians?

I would say the answer to that question is, “yes, that is the Christian message.” Just as the stranger and alien could never own land in ancient Israel because they were not Hebrews so Christianity teaches that it is not ideal to give your nation as a homeland to those who do not belong to your nation by way of descent. Chris really need to consider reading James Hoffmeier’s book on immigration to understand that Christianity has never taught that “Johnny come lately” people groups belong with us. Until Chris does read Hoffmeier maybe he’ll consider this quote from Robert Putnam on the subject;

“Immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to `hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.”

Robert Putnam
E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century
The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture

I am of the conviction that what Gordon is giving us here is a Anabaptist paradigm. The Anabaptist were (and remain) the great levelers and what Rev. Gordon is calling for here is for leveling, whether he realizes it or not. Gordon is offering here a “All colors bleed into one” Christianity. He is, as Calvin describes above, a flighty and scatterbrained dreamer.” If Gordon gets his way the result will not be some Christian paradise composed of a Babel organized social order. If Gordon gets his way he will get a social order such as described by Putnam in the quote above.

Finally, note here that Gordon, who is R2K, is doing what R2K says should never be done by ministers. He is getting out of his lane talking about an issue that isn’t a “Gospel issue.” However, if Gordon wants to insist that this is a “Gospel issue” notice once again how liberal/progressive R2K is when it takes up social issues. R2K forever wants to present itself as uncommitted on political issues but here is Gordon being the raging liberal.

Christianity As An Adjective

Dr. Thomas Shirrmacher, in the April, 1992 Chalcedon Report, called attention to the fact that the word religion came into use with the Renaissance, and that previously, the word used for differing faiths was law; the Christian Law, the Islamic Law, the Buddhist Law, and so on. A faith was either polytheistic or catholic; that is either limited in scope or universal. The term catholic properly belongs to the faith and only to a church if it insists that God’s Law—not the church—is universal in its jurisdiction. But since the Enlightenment, or about 1660, Christian catholicity has waned, especially since the French Revolution. Christianity has been replaced, or Christendom has been replaced by the concept of the West, that is Humanistic Statism.

R. J. Rushdoony

Lecture — Religious Earthquake I

All religions are law systems and all law systems are the servants of some religion. This explains why theocracy is an inescapable concept. All governments must enact laws and when they do enact laws they do so on the basis of religion since law is a statement of morality and morality a reflection of religion. This, obviously, means that all governments are the reflection of some religion. No form of government is religion free. All forms of government are as equally intensely religious. This is true when the government says it eschews all religion, or, to the contrary when it insists, that it accepts all religion. When any government says that it is religious free it only means that it is basing all its legislative and governmental work on its own authority, which tells us that it is based on the religion of humanism where man dictates the morality upon which all legislation is based. Religion has not gone away. When any government insists that it accepts all religion, once again we have a testimony of humanism since in the accepting of all religion it is the government which will determine which religion will be the religion that dictates the morality upon which legislation will be based.

The above is true for any institution in any jurisdiction wherein laws are made for the institution. Because, families, for example, have laws that govern the family, families are downstream of some religion, since the laws for the family are based on a morality and the morality in turn is based on some religion and God concept. Because this is so families will be “Christian families,” or “Humanist families” or “Jewish families,” or “Muslim families,” etc. However no family will ever be a non-religiously defined family. The same is true for law courts, for educational institutions, for workplaces, for political parties, etc. Religion is an inescapable concept and never goes away, though often it is insisted that this or that is “irreligious.”

All this explains, in part, why R2K is so disastrous. R2K insists that these different realms (family, arts, juridical, education, politics, government etc.) all should be, by definition, areligious. R2K, bone-headedly, insists that the adjective “Christian” should never define these different realms. Indeed, R2K goes so far as to say that it is sinful before God to insist that the adjective “Christian” should be supplied as a descriptor for any of these areas. In doing so, R2K turns over all these areas to non-Christian religions. This is so because once R2K has successfully convinced Christians that they should not pursue “Christian Education,” “Christian Politics,” “Christian Jurisprudence,” “Christian Art,” then all that is left as an adjective to define these jurisdictional disciplines is some non-Christian religion. This explains, in part, why R2K is idolatry and an abandoning of the Christian faith.

Postmillennialism vis-a-vis Amillennialism … Foundational Differences Teased Out

“It is right for you to realise, and to take as the sum of what we have already stated, and to marvel at exceedingly; namely, that since the Saviour has come among us, idolatry not only has no longer increased, but what there was is diminishing and gradually coming to an end: and not only does the wisdom of the Greeks no longer advance , but what there was is fading away. … And to sum the matter up: behold how the Saviour’s doctrine is everywhere increasing, while all idolatry and everything opposed to the faith of Christ is daily dwindling, and losing power, and falling. … For as, when the sun is come, darkness no longer prevails, but if any be still left anywhere it is driven away; so, now that the divine Appearing of the Word of God is come, the darkness of the idols prevails no more, and all parts of the world in every direction are illumined by His teaching.”

Athanasius, AD 296-372
Incarnation

“…the kingdom of God on earth is not confined to the mere ecclesiastical sphere, but aims at absolute universality, and extends its supreme reign over every department of human life….It follows that it is the duty of every loyal subject to endeavor to bring all human society, social and political, as well as ecclesiastical, into obedience to its law of righteousness.”

A.A. Hodge, Evangelical Theology: Lectures on Doctrine
(Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1890] 1990), 283

“It would be easy to show that at our present rate of progress the kingdoms of this world never could become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ. Indeed, many in the Church are giving up the idea of it except on the occasion of the advent of Christ, which, as it chimes in with our own idleness, is likely to be a popular doctrine. I myself believe that King Jesus will reign, and the idols be utterly abolished; but I expect the same power which turned the world upside down once will still continue to do it. The Holy Ghost would never suffer the imputation to rest upon His holy name that He was not able to convert the world.”

~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon

As Amill eschatology believes that the Kingdom of God is exactly identified with the Church and only with the Church it is inevitable that Amills will diminish the necessity for Christianity to conquer in every area of life outside and beyond the Church. After all, for the Amillennial types, if the Kingdom of God is not inclusive of any area outside the Church and the Kingdom is only synonymous with and for “the Church,” there is no need to conquer those other arenas / areas that for the Amillenialist are “non-Kingdom” arenas.

What I mean is this: As the Amils are always leaning towards identifying the Kingdom of God only with the Church — thus drawing a bright line demarcating between Kingdom/Church activity and non-Kingdom/Church activity — the consequence is that the “consistent with their eschatology” Amils will always chide anybody in the Christian faith who sees the Kingdom as being an arena that is expansive beyond the Church so as in include arenas as education, jurisprudence, just war theory, politics, economics, etc.

Postmils, to the contrary, believing that the Kingdom is not identified as exclusively with the Church and believe thus that the Kingdom of God extends beyond the Church and so will do just the opposite of the Amill and emphasize the necessity that the Church, being the armory of God’s Kingdom, must seek to conquer every arena of human existence. The Postmills believing this then will, unlike their Amill counterparts, address these different various issues from the pulpit. This leaves their Amill counterparts apoplectic.

The fact that this analysis is accurate is seen especially in the writings of David Van Drunen, who I believe has drawn out the most consistently the errant implications of the Amil eschatology. Van Drunen writes in his “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms”;

“God is not redeeming the cultural activities and institutions of this world, but is preserving them through the covenant he made with all living creatures through Noah in Gen. 8:20 – 9:19.”

Van Drunen continues writing;

“God is redeeming a people for himself, by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham and brought to glorious fulfillment in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, who has completed Adam’s original task once and for all” (p. 15). As VanDrunen explains, “redemption is not ‘creation regained’ but ‘re-creation gained’” (p. 26).

When one follows this reasoning closely one realizes that for R2K Amillennialism the intent of Biblical Christianity is to preserve culture so that individuals alone, as extracted from their cultural context, might be redeemed. Individuals are redeemed while their cultural context by definition is unredeemable. If Van Drunen were a linguist he would say that God intends to redeem the text while leaving the context to experience soul sleep. This is consistent Amillennialism and because of this Amillennial “theologians” will go spastic in condemning Postmillennialists for preaching on subject matter that in their Amillennial worldview does not particularize the need for the individual as an individual to be redeemed.

This thus creates a ever growing hostility between consistent Amills and consistent Postmills. In this hostility the Amils will forever be accusing the Postmills of diluting the Christian message since, as the Amills believe, the Postmills major on the minors and the Postmills will forever rightly accuse the Amills of being cowardly pietists who love them some retreat and who are characterized in preaching a Christianity that redeems the text (individual) while leaving the context (culture) unaffected.

This explanation also sheds light on the fact that Amillennialism Christianity and Postmillennialism Christianity create very different types of character and personalities in people. People who are decidedly Postmil are typically going to be type “A” personalities who have a thirst to conquer while people who are decidedly type “B” personalities will be content to be passive and retiring — except when attacking postmillennialists and their eschatology. Amills typically refuse to fight unless it is to fight those (postmills) who never tire of fighting for the honor of Christ.