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.

The Irrationality of R2K & The Impossibility Of R2K Succeeding In A Multicultural Society

R2K insists on the concept of a common realm where no one religion or God concept rules. Instead for R2K Natural Law rules the one unitary common realm. That is a nice theory until you run into a committed Mooselimb or a committed Talmudist or a committed Mormon who believes that Natural Law teaches polygamy. The point here is that the R2K fanboys can forever be talking about their precious “common realm, ruled by Natural Law,” but unless R2K converts a ton of Mooselimbs who now insist that Sharia Law must rule in the public square, or converts a ton of Talmudists who believe that the Noahide laws should rule the public square, or a bunch of Mormons who believe that polygamy as taught by Natural Law the common square is not going to be so common.

The point here is that R2K can blather on and on about a common realm ruled by natural law but all that will mean in the end is that all Christians quit advocating for Biblical Law because the Mooselimbs in the R2K common realm are not going to stop arguing for Sharia and the Talmudists in the R2K common realm are not going to cease advocating for the Noahide law and the Mormons, in the R2K common realm, are going to start collecting wives again like children used to collect beanie babies.

It’s just the height of irrationality for R2K to think that in a multicultural social order, such as what we have, that it is sound policy to create a naked common realm where the Mooselimbs cease advocating for Sharia, and the Talmudists cease advocating for the implementation of the Noahide laws and where the Christians can only be Christian if they advocate that Christian law is not possible and so irreligious law (an oxymoron if there ever was one) should be pursued instead. This is a theology that is tantamount to going to the OK Corral for a shoot-out while insisting Christians leave their weapons at home.

This is why R2K is a theology of defeat and surrender. It requires Christians to give up the notion of a particularly Christian social order (because per R2K Christian social orders are not possible) while not understanding that no other religion is going to play by those same rules. Mooselimbs are going to Sharia. Talmudists are going to Noahide. A common realm ruled by “Natural Law” is never going to happen even if all the Christians agree that should happen because the other faith systems here are going to continue to insist that their law systems rule the pretend R2K common realm. R2K would create a vacuum that would be filled by the law systems of other religions.

R2K is not only not Christian, it is stupid as well. It is only workable in some Escondido classroom as taught by Dr. Dork. In the end all R2K does is disarm the Christian from championing God’s Law in the public square, so allowing Christianity to be utterly defeated. It is a theology that guarantees that Christianity will be pushed back into the catacombs.

A Few Words On Both R2K and Historic 2K

This is an excellent podcast that I highly recommend as a introduction to Radical Two Kingdom (R2K) “theology.”

https://furtherreformation.substack.com/p/mark-van-der-molen-confronting-the?fbclid=IwY2xjawOHMO1leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFYcGtKcVg5V1lRcVVMaHM2c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MghjYWxsc2l0ZQEyAAEePFzfCMFot0PkGytjXFqAR3JtrYQzMyzsP97oGly8y8G6k3X9kDpLgBY55ZE_aem_4zdX8DP1ANUA2XSWHqAiPw

Towards the end Mark Van Der Molen and Rev. Benjamin Hicks say that they believe that R2K is waning in influence. I hope that is the case but I am not convinced of it. Keep in mind that R2K owns many of the flagship Reformed Seminaries. Of those Seminaries R2K doesn’t own and who might not agree with R2K, very few of them are going to come out explicitly opposed to R2K since R2K is right now the 800 pound guerilla in the Reformed world.

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.

Pronouns, School Districts, Courtrooms, & R2K

There is a major ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on both free speech and student rights. The court, sitting en banc, ruled 10-7 that “the mere use of biological pronouns does not entail ‘aggressive, disruptive action.’” In the lengthy opinion, the court split along political lines with every Republican appointee voting with the student challengers and every Democratic appointee voting with the school district.

Jonathan Turley
jonathanturley.org

Seven judges actually voted to sustain the original Olentangy (Columbus, Ohio) school district ruling that the refusal to use the pronouns that insane people demand that other people use when addressing them was “aggressive, disruptive action.” The Olentangy school district, comprised also of insane people, made a ruling for their schools that faggoty pronouns had to be used if insane people wanted to be known by faggoty pronouns the opposite of non-faggoty proper pronouns. The pro-faggoty pronoun school policy included sanctions for any student who refused to use the preferred pronouns of transgender insane classmates. Such violations were deemed “contrary to the other student’s identity.” The first judge to hear the case upheld the policy of the Olentangy school district. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned the lower court and the original faggoty school policy.

Now there will be people who will be more offended by my use of the word “faggoty” then they are offended that a group of “professional” school personnel as well as the original Clinton appointed judge, as well as seven judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided to reinforce childhood insanity. To such people offended with me, all I can say is… “suck it up buttercup.”

The Olentangy school district now has the option of appealing to the SCOTUS.

Keep in mind that if your Pastor embraced Radical Two Kingdom theology he will never say a word about the error of this original Olentangy policy. If he were R2K and if the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had ruled in favor of the school district he also would remain completely silent about this violation of God’s revealed law. The R2K Pastor would say; “Speaking on this is not in my lane as a minister and it would be sin for me to speak on it in my role as Pastor.

You tell me which is more insane… the Olentangy school policy on pronouns or the policy of Radical Two Kingdom theology.

From The Mailbag; “Pastor, Aren’t You Being Unreasonable?”

Joshua Ambassador asked;

“The practical question in the debate is this: Nearly everyone in society is unregenerate today, spiritually blind, and suppressing the truth. What basis can there be, then, for law and justice?”

Bret responds,

There can be no basis for law and justice if we compromise with the heathen. Indeed, compromising with the heathen means “non-law,” and “injustice.” Let the heathen compromise with Biblical Christians.

The basis of any social order must be God’s Law Word enforced by Magistrates. The current humanist “Law and justice” is enforced on me by the Magistrate. Why shouldn’t we advocate that God’s Law and Justice be enforced upon the heathen by Christian Magistrates? Is God so small that we must wait until the Christ haters agree to be ruled by God’s law in the civil realm?  This is the Usus politicus sive civilis  of the law. This the understanding that the law serves the commonwealth or body politic as a force to restrain sin.

 
JA asked,

When people who are new to the debate hear the arguments of presuppositionalists, it sounds like they are saying that all the unregenerate are so willfully blind that it’s pointless to even try to come to a common agreement with them about what is right and wrong. The basis for Law, justice, and government in society can’t exist. Therefore Christians should go to some uninhabited place and form their own society.

BLMc responds

Because all ground is common ground (God’s ground) it is not pointless to pray and expect conversion. At the same time it is true that no ground is neutral ground. Since no ground is neutral ground we must not yield any ground to the unregenerate as if they have deed, title, or right to that ground. All must yield to Christ’s Lordship in every area because every piece of ground is the Kings.

If the heathen are given the whip hand though, it is true that the basis of Law, justice, and government in society can’t exist. This because increasingly obvious as the antithesis works out its implications on both sides. Therefore non-Christians should Kiss the Son, lest they perish in the way.

If you compromise with the heathen, the end will ALWAYS eventually be increasing heathenism and humanist anti-Christ law.

Let the heathen go look for uninhabited lands to live in.

Look… it is either rule or be ruled. We can rule by God’s glorious law – and this despite the heathen screaming like stuck pigs, or we can be ruled by Old Slewfoot’s hobnail ruinous law that seeks to maim, kill, and destroy.

Whose law would you be ruled by?

JA wrote,

Yes, the Pilgrims did that but there was a lot more land available then. And plenty of Christians have to “seek the peace of the city where they are captives” (Jeremiah 29 from memory), which surely involves co-operating with the unregenerate and coming to some kind of agreement with them about how the city/community/nation should be governed.

BLMc responds

Cooperate with the unregenerate on these matters? Isn’t that defined as sin? Let the unregenerate co-operate with me.

An Exchange On Natural Law With Evan Gerber

Evan Gerber wrote,

McAtee Bret It’s not just opinions though—there is, objectively, content in natural revelation, with moral implications, over which we disagree.

Bret responds,

True … but the unbeliever is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and so to suggest that he can enter in the discussion about the moral implications of objective NL is just contrary to Scripture. Scripture teaches in Rmns. 8:7 that the carnal mind is at enmity to God’s law. It cannot submit.

So, it is just opinions for the fallen man. To deny that is to deny total depravity. And for the Christian it is just an exchange of opinions on what NL is objectively teaching since there is no “thus saith the Lord in NL.” In order to read Natural Revelation aright one must first presuppose Special Revelation.

EG wrote,

I think this is obvious even from the comprehensibility of Scripture itself. Without natural revelation, Scripture we would be unable to comprehend Scripture. Further, without tradition—because that is what all language is—we would have no way access the Truth of Scripture.

BLM replies,

Our comprehending Scripture as God intends is dependent upon reading it via the proper presuppositions. After all, the JW’s read Scripture and still get it wrong. So… while we must be able to read to understand Scripture reading doesn’t guarantee that we will understand Scripture. So, even the reading of Scripture depends upon proper presuppositions which can only be given by God in regeneration. Special Revelation still precedes General Revelation.

Indeed, even the “we” doing the reading cannot know who we are without presupposing God. So, whether it is the reader or the one doing the reading any progress is dependent upon having God centered presuppositions.

EG writes,

In order to argue against NL, I think you have to affirm *just* enough natural revelation to make Scripture comprehensible, but somehow make a distinction between what is necessary to understand Scripture and all other natural revelation. I just don’t believe this distinction is warranted.

Bret responds,

See above. I think it is warranted. You have not yet plumped the depths of the fall.

EG writes,

[Side note: If this is just a semantic disagreement over the term “Natural Law,” I’m happy to use “Natural Revelation” instead. I am not contending that NL exists “independent” of God, nor is that my understanding from reading Aquinas.]

BLM responds,

Aquinas teaches that fallen man can read NL aright since in Thomism man’s intellect is not completely fallen.

Might I recommend that you read Francis Schaeffer’s “Escape From Reason?”