Sproul Contra R2K

“Those who hide behind the idea that the church should never speak to political issues have missed the scriptural accounts of what we would call prophetic criticism….

…The principle reason for the existence of any government is to maintain, sustain, and protect the sanctity of human life. When the state fails to do that, it has become demonized. And it is the sacred duty of the church and of every Christian to voice opposition to it….

..It is time for Christians to give prophetic criticism to the church, specifically those churches that support abortion on demand or remain silent on this major issue…

..When the church is silent in the midst of the a holocaust, she ceases to be a real church. Wherever human dignity is under attack, it is the duty of the church and of the Christian to rise up in protest against it. This is not a political matter, and neither is it a temporary matter. It is not a matter over which Christians may disagree. It is a matter of life and death, the results of which will count forever.”

R.C. Sproul
Tabletalk, April 2013

Dr. Sproul has given us a couple principles here.

First, Dr. Sproul has told us that the Church, as the Church, must speak out whenever the demonized State pursues an agenda that is contrary to the revealed norms of Scripture. Of course this principle is exactly contrary to R2K, with its insistence that the Church must not speak out on common realm issues. Dr. Sproul goes as far to say that such a responsibility is a “sacred duty.” R2K denies that this “sacred duty” ever exists.

Second, Dr. Sproul has told us that the R2K principle of Churches not speaking out against a demonized state are Churches that themselves must be spoken out against. Churches that employ the R2K principle of “silence on common realm issues” are churches wherein prophetic criticism must be raised against. In short, such churches are to be denounced.

Third, notice the mention of the “demonized state.” I would suggest that implicit in such an idea is the fact that the State is not common in the sense that it serves no religious agenda. Obviously if a state can become demonized, it is also the case that a state can be “Christian.”

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

4 thoughts on “Sproul Contra R2K”

  1. Sproul, Calvin, many other Reformers and a whole host of men at the Westminster Assembly must not have known about this declaration:

    “theonomy (and its variations) gets in the way of its adherent’s otherwise orthodox confession of justification sola fide. The law-gospel distinction is essential to sola fide, and it is also at play in 2k. On the one hand, I’d want to be cautious about implying anything undue against those who explicitly and forthrightly confess sola fide. On the other, and by the same token, I think it’s warranted to maintain that theonomy (and its variations) has a worrisome blind spot for the law-gospel distinction when it comes to ecclesiology.”

    & the author of this calls his opponents ‘arrogant’


    comment 411

  2. Zrim (Steve Zrimec), the commenter, is a rather frequent blogger and blog visitor, and will eventually read this comment as well.

    In general, he is a rather intelligent man. However, it is rather unfortunate that even with his intelligence, he clearly makes no effort to properly understand theonomy and continues to parrot RSC’s claims of constantiniasm, and natural law yet somehow still has affirmed on oldlife that we should use the Bible in the public square.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *