Category: Natural Law

A Few Distinctions on Christian Nationalism Concerning R2K, 2K Christian Nationalism & Theonomic Christian Nationalism

Below find an example of how there are a myriad of different readings of what exactly Christian Nationalism is. The below is correct as far as it goes but it fails inasmuch as it suggests that all Christian Nationalism is the Christian Nationalism that is described below by Doyle Matthews.

This from a chap (Doyle Matthews) who is correct on Presuppositionalism but is thorough-going hard core Alienist, which is to say that he is an inconsistent Presuppositionalist.

DM writes,

What do Christian Nationalists and R2K have in common?

1. They are both two-kingdom advocates.

BLMc responds

First, a wise person would understand that the very term “Christian Nationalist” has as many definitions as Carter’s has liver pills. As such making these kind of categorical unqualified statements is not profitable in the least.

It is true of the Stephen Wolfe / Michael Spangler school of Christian Nationalism that it is two-kingdom (2K). It is definitely NOT true of the Christian Nationalism that have been championed by Theonomist / Reconstructionist school of thought that began its strong rise in the 20th century.

Theonomists / Recons tend to talk about God’s complete sovereignty over every area of life while acknowledging that God has ordained different Jurisdictions (typically Church, State, Family – though other areas have been designated as well) and in those different Jurisdictions God has appointed Stewards in order to govern in the name of the great King of Kings, Jesus Christ. Those Stewards over the respective Jurisdictions have been Fathers over families, Elders over Churches, and Magistrates over Civil Order offices. The governance of these stewards of these different Jurisdictions must be consistent with God’s revealed Word.

So, it is just not true, as Mr. Matthews wrongly asserts that all Christian Nationalism is 2K. It is not even close to being true.

DM writes,

2. They are both natural law advocates.

BLMc responds,

It is true that both 2K and Christian Nationalism, as it falls from the hands of 2K advocates that their version of Christian Nationalism is based on Natural law. However, again, 2K doesn’t own the idea of Christian Nationalism.  Theonomy/Reconstructionism has long advocated for Christian Nationalism before the recent revival of Thomistic Natural Law Christian Nationalism.

So, Christian Nationalism of the Theonomy/Recon schools abominates the methodology of 2K Christian Nationalism though at the same time it is certainly the case that there are conclusions that 2K and Theonomy can agree upon in their mutual but distinct advocacy of Christian Nationalism. Whether or not there can be some kind of rapprochement between these two schools of thought as pursuing the same goal is yet to be seen.

DM writes,

3. They both believe that “right reason” is how one arrives at natural law.

BLMc responds;

Again, it is true that the Thomistic Natural Law school that is informing the 2K version of Christian Nationalism does indeed insist upon the fatuous idea of “right reason.” However, all because 2K Christian Nationalism is Thomistic does not mean that all Christian Nationalism is dependent upon the idea of “right reason” as dependent on Natural Law categories. The theonomic understanding of Christian Nationalism looks to God’s Law-Word to inform of laws that should govern a social order. The theonomic understanding of Christian Nationalism realizes that fallen men starting from himself as his own point of reference in order to name and understand the very real reality of Natural Law (Psalm 19) will always twist Natural Law in order for it to reveal his beginning presuppositions. This is because the Natural man following natural law is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1) and due to the fact that his carnal mind is at enmity (warfare) with God (Romans 8). The presuppositions of 2K Christian Nationalism are extremely flawed but those presuppositions of 2K Christian Nationalism does not define the Christian Nationalism movement as a whole. (And there are many more disagreements to hash out besides this one we are concentrating on in this thread.)

So, one can advocate for Christian Nationalism while not advocating for 2K Thomism.

DM writes,

4. They both reject Biblical law as the standard for civil law.

BLMc responds,

This one corresponds to #3 above. Natural Law Christian Nationalists are just terrible on the issue of what the standard for civil law is or will be. The Christian Nationalism is shut up to their subjectively arrived at conclusions about the standard for civil law as based on their subjective beginning point presuppositions. Natural Law Christian Nationalists have no “thus saith the Lord” for their positions, though admittedly some of them will try to stitch together premise upon premise from one of the Ten commandments in order to arrive at legality and illegality, or in order to arrive at the penalty that should be declared upon for crimes committed.

However, Christian Nationalism doesn’t need 2K Natural Law theory in order to get off the ground.

DM writes,

So when you come right down to it, there isn’t much difference between Christian Nationalism and R2K advocates.

BLMc responds,

This is monumentally jejune.  R2K anti-Christian Nationalists and 2K Christian Nationalists fight like dogs and cats on the issue of Christian Nationalism. My desire is for a pox to fall upon both houses (though I pray daily for a more destructive pox to fall on R2K) but despite that there are vast differences between 2K Christian Nationalists and R2K anti-Christian Nationalism.

Mr. Matthews is really exposing his ignorance with the last statement.

As bad as a Wolfean 2K Christian Nationalism would be it shines as beautiful in comparison to the R2K vision of social order.

So to be clear here …. there are three categories in this small slice of debate

1.) 2K Nationalism following Stephen Wolfe who has resurrected the errant thinking of Thomism and many Reformed lights who quit Reforming when it came to epistemology.

2.) Theonomic/Reconstruction Nationalism following Van Til, Gordon Clark, Bahnsen, Rushdoony and others who championed for God’s law being the standard in the Law-Order realm as being the norm that norms all norms.

3.) R2K Anti-Christian Nationalism following the heretical Escondido Westminster-West Seminary school. Westminster-West features chaps like David Van Drunen, R. Scott Clark, Michael Horton, and other historical misfits. (I say historical misfits because nobody until these descendants of Meredith Kline ever suggested the kinds of things these blokes champion in terms of Christianity and social order.)

Exposing Natural Law For The Cheat It Is (II); A Conversation

Joshua writes;

Fallen man distorts and suppresses special revelation too, but still understands it well enough to aggravate his condemnation. The Jews heard Christ preach and understood Him well enough to make their condemnation worse than Sodom and Gomorrah.

Bret responds;

Nobody denies that fallen man suppresses all God’s revelation. However, with Special Revelation there is a specific text to which we can point and appeal. Natural Law has no such text. Nobody can tell you what Natural Law is. What library do I go to in order to check out a volume of Natural Law? Is it Wm. Paley’s Natural Law? Rousseau’s Natural Law or De Sade’s Natural Law? Is it Idealism’s Natural Law? Romanticism’s Natural Law? Is it Deism’s Natural Law? Anaximander’s? Heraclitus’? Zeno’s? Plato’s? Why should Aristotle via Aquinas be prioritized in terms of what Natural Law is?

“Natural” laws must be accessible and definable if we are going to apply them to society as civil law. Since everyone disagrees over what is or is not a “natural law,” how do we determine who is right? If we appeal to the Bible as the “higher law” by which we judge “natural laws,” then the basis of “natural law” is overturned.

Scripture itself teaches in the context of Israel looking for other sources of knowledge;

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they (the other false sources of knowledge) do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Here is what the author of the Heidelberg Catechism thought of Natural Law.

“Furthermore, although natural demonstrations teach nothing concerning God that is false, yet men, without the knowledge of God’s word, obtain nothing from them except false notions and conceptions of God; both because these demonstrations do not contain as much as is delivered in his word, and also because even those things which may be understood naturally, men, nevertheless, on account of innate corruption and blindness, receive and interpret falsely, and so corrupt it in various ways.”

Zacharias Ursinus
Commentary on Heidelberg Catechism

Joshua writes;

So also with general revelation. Fallen man holds the truth (like the Athenians who knew there was only one God) but in unrighteousness (like the Athenians who built many altars). But holding the truth in unrighteousness does not mean fallen man has lost that truth. The Athenians worshipped many gods but still knew there was only one God.

Bret responds,

First, we must insist that general revelation does not equal Natural Law. You seem to be conflating these two distinct ideas.

Of General Revelation we can say that it is an activity of God which began at Creation and is Universal throughout the universe being continuous and unrelenting (Psalm 19). In God’s General Revelation what is witnessed are the attributes of God (Romans 1:19f) and the sinfulness of man. This non-verbal witness that is General Revelation renders all men without excuse and does not reveal the way of salvation.

Natural Law on the other hand is the activity of man warping General Revelation which began in Greece with Zeno of Citium. Natural Law, unlike General Revelation is not universal but can be found chiefly in Western Europe and America. As such, unlike General Revelation, Natural Law is not continuous and is only received by some men at some times in some places. Natural Law discusses two issue: the possible existence of god/gods and the problem of evil – anthropologically considered. The origin of Natural Law is man centered reason, subjective experience, feelings, or humanistic faith – all based on humanist philosophic discourse, yielding conflicting ways of salvation.

General Revelation is theological – God revealing to fallen man. Natural Law is philosophical – man starting from himself seeking to climb into “God’s” wisdom. Strictly speaking, man suppresses General Revelation while embracing Natural Law.

I never wrote that fallen man has “lost the truth of general revelation.” The heavens remain declaring the glory of God and the firmament remains showing forth His handiwork. God continues to reveal Himself via General Revelation, but man, using Natural Law blunts God’s General Revelation by means of suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

After his analysis of whether Natural Law should be conflated with General Revelation theologian G. C. Berkouwer wrote;

“the identification of general revelation and natural theology is an untenable position.”

Joshua writes,

Paul makes the same point in Romans 1:32, after listing all the abominable ways fallen man suppresses the truth: “Who, KNOWING the judgment of God, that they that do such things are worthy of death.” They suppress the truth, but they still know that there is one God, who will judge them for transgressing His commandments.

Bret responds;

Perhaps I have been unclear. I do not negate the idea that God is sending General Revelation. I do not deny that men are responsible. What I deny is that fallen man can use General Revelation as a means to organize his social order existence, and that is because fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. So, fallen man knows but denies he knows and because he is at war with God (Romans 8:7, I Cor. 2:14) General Revelation and especially Natural Law is not a means of discerning for him.

Joshua writes,

Paul lists violations of nearly all the 10 commandments in the previous verses, showing that everyone still has some knowledge of both tables of the moral law.

Bret responds,

A knowledge that does them no good because they are suppressing that knowledge in unrighteousness. All this knowledge can do is leave them accountable for their suppression.

Joshua writes,

Natural law may be suppressed, but it is still there, and we can appeal to it when speaking to people who reject the Bible. They can’t obey it, and even if they could, it wouldn’t save them, because it doesn’t reveal an atonement for their sins in violating it. But it is still useful. The civil magistrate must punish sins against the light of nature (Westminster Confession of Faith).

Bret responds,

THIRD AND FOURTH HEADS OF DOCTRINE Of the Corruption of Man, His Conversion to God, and the Manner Thereof

Article 4 There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.

Joshua writes,

The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, i.e., the Scriptures which He inspired men to write. Paul is describing special revelation 1 Cor 2:14, not general revelation or natural law.

Bret responds;

2:15 suggests that you’re reading of 2:14 is errant.

“But the spiritual man judges ALL things, yet he is judged by no one.”

Finally, a favorite explanation of mine on the meaning of Natural Law as coming from a heathen. Start at 2:00.