Category: R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology)

Now, if the fallen man get this most obvious of Natural Law truths wrong because of his suppression mechanism then how can Natural Law be the fallen man’s guide to life except inasmuch as Natural Law serves fallen man’s to climb up into God’s lap in order to slap God in the face.

Example – The sodomite might agree that Natural Law teaches marriage (climbing up in God’s lap) but only with the purpose of marrying his male consort (slapping God in the face).

So, it may be the case that fallen man will get natural law right from time to time but it always ends up being stolen capital in order to get his Christ denying worldview off the ground. No anti-Christ worldview can ever be perfectly anti-Christ consistent. If it were it could never last since all perfectly anti-Christ worldviews end up in the graveyard. As such all anti-Christ worldviews sneak Christian capital into them in order to be successful enough not to kill themselves.

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handywork… their line is gone out through all the earth. God left not himself without witness, in that he gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons. Consider the ravens… consider the lilies, how they grow. Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise. After the doings of the land of Egypt… shall ye not do, and after the doings of the land of Canaan… shall ye not do. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made… who changed the natural use… for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature… and the men likewise… receiving in themselves that recompence of their error. Who knowing the judgment of God that they which commit such things are worthy of death. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law… which shew the work of the law written in their hearts… their conscience also bearing witness. Doth not even nature itself teach you…?”

(Psalm 19:1–4; Acts 14:17; Luke 12:24–28; Proverbs 6:6; Leviticus 18:3; Romans 1:20, 26–27, 32; Romans 2:14–15; 1 Corinthians 11:14).

Bret responds,

Once again Cody as a rabid Natural Law advocate shows up to declare what God has made known. No theonomist/presuppositionalist disagrees that God has made Himself known via Natural Law. This is red herring argumentation on Cody’s part. What the Theonomist contends is the even though God has made himself known, fallen man, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, and having a mind that is at warfare with God, works to the end to insist that he does not know what God has made clear. In order to know what God has made clear fallen man must be regenerated so as to be instructed by Scripture which alone is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training for righteousness.

Here we follow the Synod of Dordt;

So, we appreciate Cody stepping up the plate here but we see that it is in the words of the great Detroit Tigers play by play man, Ernie Harwell…

“A swing and a miss.”

Cody writes,

Nature is everywhere “presupposed” in the God-breathed Scripture as a moral teacher, both about right and wrong and about God. It is not this because Scripture says so; it is this inherently, and Scripture attests to and confirms it.

Bret

Without presupposing God and His Word we don’t even know what nature is or means. Remember, in Christ all things consist. This includes the idea of “nature,” and the idea of all meaning. Even man the knower cannot know himself apart from presupposing God and the Scriptures, never mind knowing nature. I will say it again for those hard of hearing… “While it is the case that nature has inherent meaning that inherent meaning can not be known who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” To insist otherwise is to deny the Reformed doctrine of total depravity.

Then there is the fact that nature is fallen — red in tooth and claw as some have it. So, you have fallen man, reading fallen nature and coming to un-fallen and proper conclusions?

Cody writes,

Nature does not exist apart from God. It is because God made it, and it, as creation, reflects the Creator. He expects us (believer or not) to use it well, and if we don’t he will hold us accountable.

Bret responds,

1.) God made nature and nature finds its meaning only by the one presupposing God and His Word as the one who created nature.

2.) Fallen man cannot use nature well and that is because he was ruined in Adam and so no experiences total depravity. This total depravity works to the end of twisting everything (including Natural Law) to the end of man serving himself as fallen and not God. After all the carnal mind is at enmity (warfare) against God. It cannot submit (Romans 8:7).

3.) By insisting that fallen man can read fallen nature aright you are doing exactly what Van Til spoke of. You are sneaking stolen Christian capital into your humanist epistemology in order to get it off the ground and operating in order to deny the necessity of presupposing God and His Word to understand real reality. You are climbing up in God’s lap in order to slap Him in the face. You are saying that there is meaningful meaning (climbing up in God’s lap) but that that meaningful meaning can be known even by those who hate God and His Word (slapping God in the face.)

We should also say something here about Cody’s misinterpretation of Romans 2.

Is Thomistic Natural Law … Legitimate?   Part II

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.

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.