A Few Words On Both R2K and Historic 2K

Then there is the problem that even if R2K is on the decline we still have the problem of Historic 2K with its reliance upon Thomistic Natural Law theory. The disagreement between R2K and Historic 2K is not on Natural Law theory but only on how Natural Law should be read. There is a intense fight between Historic 2K and R2K even though they both insist that Natural Law is perspicuous. Indeed, Natural Law is so perspicuous that the best of our Reformed theologians who embrace Thomistic Natural Law can’t even get close to agreeing what the putative perspicuous Natural Law teaches.

As it stands I can hold my nose and hold hands with many of the Historic 2K chaps because they end up embracing my positions but the methodology they use to get there is contrary to the Reformed faith because in denying that in order for Natural Law to be read aright one must presuppose special Revelation they have denied a foundational doctrine of the Reformed faith, to wit, Total Depravity. Like the R2K chaps that the historic 2K don’t much like historic 2K has embraced the same ancient inherently philosophical dualism. The difference between R2K and Historic 2K is that Historic 2K allows more of a bleeding over between the two realms (nature and grace) while the hard R2K chaps have built impermeable walls between their two realms of nature (which R2K refers to as “common”) and “grace.” For both R2K and historic 2K God’s special revelation is not the norm that norms all norms in the nature realm. For both the norm that norms all norms in the nature realm is Jesus Christ ruling by his “left hand” via Natural Law. The difference then between Historic 2K and R2K is only that the walls built between nature and grace are more permeable (leaky) then what you find in R2K. It is that leakiness that allows Biblical Christians to carefully and gingerly hold hands with them on some matters.

The better model of course is to embrace the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity (which is different than Utter Depravity) and to get rid of the whole idea of “Jesus Christ ruling the realm of nature (the common realm) by His left hand.” All this idea does is to create a “secular” realm that, per R2K, can’t be in any way related to God’s Kingdom. When doing this what R2K yields up is not a secular realm that is “common” but rather what it yields up in truth is a profane realm that is called “common.” This secular/profane realm of R2K, being by definition, “irreligious” becomes a profane realm where nothing can be considered a Christian calling. R2K tries to argue that Christians can operate in their “common realm” but Christians can only do so as operating in a profane (non Christian) way.

Again, Historic 2K is far superior to R2K at this point because at least Historic 2K isn’t afraid of the word “Christian” being used in an adjectival sense. Historic 2K has no problem with the phraseology of “Christian Magistrates,” or, “Christian Fathers,” or “Christian Historians,” etc.. For R2K this is all anathema since the adjective “Christian” cannot exist in their common (really “profane”) realm.

However, the better model vis-a-vis both R2K and Historic 2K is Biblical Christianity where we lose the language of “Christ ruling by His left hand,” and where we are finally forever done with the Thomistic theory of Natural Law, and where we no longer are enchanted with philosophical dualisms and where we no longer are parceling out what can be and cannot be part of God’s Kingdom. Biblical Christianity instead insists on unity in diversity. Biblical Christianity insists that there are two Kingdoms — The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Beelzebub. Paul teaches in Colossians that God’s people have been “delivered from the Kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of God’s dear Son whom He loves.” God’s Kingdom is characterized by His people laboring for Him in different callings explicitly ruled by Him. So, God rules directly by His Word and the necessary consequences arising for His Word rightly understood. Because of this all callings can be as unto Christ and so have the quality of “sacred.” No calling is profane. Within this one Kingdom of God over which Christ rules by His Word there are distinct jurisdictions (hence diversity) wherein Christ has assigned His stewards to rule. In the Civil jurisdiction Christ has assigned male Magistrates to rule under Him and by His authority. In the Familial jurisdiction Christ has assigned Fathers to rule under Him and by His authority. In the ecclesiastical realm Christ has assigned male Elders to rule under Him and by His authority. This has traditionally been referred to as “Christian Jurisdictionalism” and it has the advantage of not only being Scriptural but also it finds Christ ruling as Mediatorial Sovereign over His totalistic Kingdom. It also has the advantage of being forever done with this pernicious soft or hard dualism that earnestly desires to create a putatively secular realm that is either really profane (R2K) or failing that is methodologically inconsistent with the Reformed doctrine of total depravity (Historic 2K) with their appeal to fallen man’s ability to read Natural Law aright. (This is really just a reversion to the old Enlightenment doctrine of “Right reason and Natural Law theory.”)

Now before the Historic 2K chaps get all juiced up, I will stipulate that for centuries our Reformed fathers were not consistent on this matter of epistemology. For centuries one can find an ongoing appeal to Thomistic “Natural Law” theory in Reformed writers. However, I would contend that they were involved in felicitous inconsistency. Calvin, for example, did a series of Sermons on Deuteronomy that have been published in a book titled “The Covenant Enforced,” and when one reads that series of Sermons one wonders how Calvin could have said anything positive about Natural Law. Secondly, on this point, we should not be surprised that with the rise of presuppositionalism we saw more light breaking out of Scripture with the result that we were indeed a Reformed people who were interested in always Reforming where warranted.

So my plea, as it has always been, is to be done especially with R2K which I believe is heretical since it evacuates Jesus Christ’s office of King. If we have a Jesus Christ who is not Mediatorial King (see the book “Messiah The Prince” by William Symington) then the Jesus Christ we have is not the Jesus Christ we find in Scripture but is only a Jesus Christ who just happens to share the same name with the Jesus Christ of Scripture. My plea extends to being done with Historic 2K since it epistemologically fails to throw man off the throne of source authority.

This issue is watershed. If we get either our ontology or epistemology wrong we will not be able to get anything else right.

May the Lord Christ grant Reformation to His Reformed Church.