Category: Apologetics

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.

You might be a Cultural Marxist if you believe (A Sampler)

1.) In the Fatherhood of God over all men
2.) In the Brotherhood of all men
3.) That God loves everybody
4.) That it is sin to “judge”
5.) That Galatians 3:28 proves that distinctions end after asking Jesus into your heart
6.) That Israel remains God’s chosen people
7.) That it is only fair that competing gods get equal time with the God of the Bible when it comes to the public square.
8.) That “I feel” is synonymous with “I Think.”
9.) That there is no distinction between objective and subjective Truth
10.) That from nothing, something comes
11.) That we should listen to the Language police
12.) That the Jews of 2025 are genetically connected to the “Jews” occupying the Jewish nation we call Israel.
13.) That sending your children to Government (Public) schools is a good idea saying, “Well, I turned out fine. I’m sure they will as well.”
14.) That women should vote.
15.) That women should be participants in running cultural Institutions besides the home.
16.) That the Federal Government has any power over the states besides those expressly delegated and enumerated to the Federal Government by the State as stipulated in the US Constitution.
17.) That the US should get rid of the Electoral College
18.) That legal immigration from third world countries is “just fine.”
19.) That anybody has a “right,” as coming from God, to healthcare, a good paying job, or to vote.
20.) That there exists more than two genders or that it is possible to “transition” from one gender to another.
21.) That ICE is mean.
22.) That the embrace of the Ordo Amoris is heresy in the Church that needs to be stamped out.
23.) That either elected Republicans or Democrats are interested in anything more than being re-elected and/or financially profiting from their position.
24.) That both Republicans and Democrats don’t form a Uniparty controlled by players who wield the real power as behind the throne.
25.) That the names Franz Boas, Saul Alinsky, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Wilhelm Reich or Herbert Marcuse are insignificant for where we are at in this cultural moment.
26.) In a Oppressor vs. Oppressed theory of social power.
27.)  That race isn’t real or is only about melanin levels or is only a social construct.
28.) Biblical patriarchy is unseemly and think that women should lead just as much as men and in the same way.
29.) That climate change threatens humanity.
30.) That the Universities are not a threat to Western Civilization.
31.) That the words “antisemite,” “racist,” “bigot,” “homophobe” “misogynist” any longer have any significance in terms of defining people.
 

Scripture Alone & Roman Catholicism

“It is the original lie of Satan that God, speaking in his Word, needs an interpreter to give man infallible guidance (Gen. 2: 17; 3: 4). This ancient error now is supreme in the Roman Catholic Church. Thus the Baltimore Catechism (Q. 1328) asks:

“How can we know the true meaning of the doctrines contained in the Bible?”

Answer: “We can know the true meaning . . . from the Catholic Church which has been authorized by Jesus Christ to explain His doctrines, and which is preserved from error in its teachings by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost.”

Thus, while affirming that God has spoken to men in the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that God has not made clear what he means, and so above the Word of God must stand the authoritative interpretation of the Church (which, we are to presume, has an expert opinion about what God’s Word means). This also means that Rome would have us trust in the clear word of man rather than the obscure Word of God.

The Reformed faith views the matter precisely in reverse, holding that Scripture alone expresses divine truth with perfect clarity, and so regarding the Scriptures alone as finally authoritative. The interpretation of the Church (as in its creeds) must always, therefore, be regarded as less than a perfectly clear expression of divine truth, and as necessarily subordinate to Scripture. The authority of creeds is determined by Scripture, not determinative of Scripture. They have authority only if, and to the extent that, they truly are faithful to Scripture.”

G.I. Williamson
The Westminster Confession of Faith: for Study Classes

1.) Now add the reality that if the average layperson needs the Roman Catholic Church to tell him what Scripture means because God’s speaking is so opaque in God’s inspired special Revelation (Scripture) how is the average layperson supposed to understand the uninspired interpretation of what God speaks in His Word as given by the Church without someone else explaining to him what the Church means when it interprets God’s perspicuous word. In other words this reasoning falls into an infinite regress. If man is not capable of understanding God’s spoken Word aright and so needs an interpreter then it is only reasonable to believe that man is not capable of understanding the interpreter of God’s Word aright and so needs yet another interpreter to interpret the original interpreter’s interpretation of God’s Word…. ad infinitum.

Are we to believe that the Roman Catholic Church can explain with more clarity than the God of the universe?

2.) The Roman Catholic church has made so many errors in Church history that it is laughable that they want to insist that they have been preserved in their teachings from error by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost. Whether it is the embrace of purgatory (nowhere taught in Scripture) or the embrace of relics (nowhere taught in Scripture) or having Mary as a co-redemptrix or mediatrix (nowhere taught in Scripture) the history of the Roman Catholic church is one error after another.

3.) It is a pretty good gig to be in the position as an Institution to give yourself the ability to be the one in charge of what God does or does not say. Rome, when it makes this move, has indeed ascended to the seat of God. It really doesn’t matter what God says if Rome is the one with the final authority of what God says and means. Honestly, it seems beyond obvious that with this doctrine of the Church having authority over Scripture that the Roman Catholic Institutional Church has made itself to be God. With this false doctrine promulgated by Rome it is the case that in the Church we live and move and have our being.

4.) This doctrine underscores another doctrine by Rome and that is their doctrine that their is no salvation outside the Church of Rome. This is an obvious implication of the above authority over Scripture. If the Church is God’s final interpreter of God’s mind then it is obvious that to be out of fellowship with the Roman Catholic Church is to be out of fellowship with God. This Roman Catholic doctrine of being the “mouth of God” keeps people who really believe this chained as slaves inside the Roman Catholic whore of a “church.” If one really believed this doctrine one would never leave Rome no matter what demonic deviation Rome might insists that God really says.

5.) Of course this issue was the formal principle of the Reformation. While “Justification by grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone” was the material principle of the Reformation (the fuse that was lit that set the whole thing off) behind the material principle was the formal principle which was a dispute of where the authority lie in order to determine where to find the mind of God. Rome, following their epistemological doctrine that the Church is the ultimate authority, the Reformers insisted that the epistemological authority for men is the written word of God.