R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology) – Page 48

Connecting the Dots Between Malthus, Sanger, R2K, and Agenda 21

“All children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons…. Therefore … we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.

Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlement in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they are doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders.”

Thomas Malthus
An Essay on the Principle of Population

1.) Keep in mind that R2K teaches that it would be morally wrong for a Minister to speak against this kind of agenda from the Pulpit because a Malthusian worldview is a matter for the common realm and not the Church realm.

2.) If you go to youtube and look for “Agenda 21” you will see that this kind of ideology is being pursued by the United Nations in terms of their official policy. They have written position papers that echo this Malthusian approach.

3.) Clearly the whole Planned Parenthood enterprise, beginning with Margaret Sanger, and right up until today has more than a whiff of this Malthusian worldview. It is a not much discussed fact that Sanger began her campaign with the goal of keeping Blacks and Jews from breeding successfully.

In the April 1933 issue of the Birth Control Review, Sanger said that “[Slavs, Latin, and Hebrew immigrants are] human weeds … a deadweight of human waste … [Blacks, soldiers, and Jews are a] menace to the race. … Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”

Sanger advocated a program that would;

“… hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

When liberal clergy support Abortion they are supporting the same racial population control that Margaret Sanger supported.

4.) Of course this is part of the anti-Christ worldview where evil is called good, and good is called evil. For Malthus, charity and philanthropy would be to help reduce the surplus population of the earth by doing the good works of insuring that people die. The solution for the “problem” of too high of birth rates would be to abort the babies and sterilize (and maybe even kill) the Mothers.

Answering Bernard Lewis

“For the modern Westerner, religious freedom is defined by the phrase “freedom of worship” and means just that. But the practice of Islam means more than worship, important as that may be. It means a whole way of life, prescribed in detail by holy texts and treatises based on them. . . . It is not enough to do good and refrain from evil as a personal choice. It is incumbent upon Muslims also to command and forbid — that is, to exercise authority. The same principle applied in general to the holy law, which must be not only obeyed but also enforced. Thus, in the view of many jurists, a Muslim not only must abstain from drinking and dissipation, but also must destroy strong drink and other appurtenances of dissipation. For this reason, in any encounter between Islam and unbelief, Islam must dominate. . . .

There are some who followed this argument to its logical conclusion and maintain that an authentic Muslim life is possible only under a Muslim government. There are other who reject this extremist view and admit the possibility of living a Muslim life under a non-Muslim government, provided that that government meets certain specific requirements.”

Bernard Lewis,
Islam and the West, 52-53

1.) Here we see an error in Lewis’ thinking because it simply is not the case that “freedom of worship is just that.” For example, Justice Antonin Scalia, in a Supreme Court case about Native Americans who were fired for smoking peyote as part of their religious practice, wrote the majority opinion upholding the firing, saying that if religious beliefs were superior to the “law of the land,” it would make “every citizen a law unto himself.” So, Lewis is just wrong that “freedom of worship” is just that.

2.) So, the R2K Enlightenment “Secular” State does the same thing that the Muslim State does in as much as it restricts “freedom of worship.” The question between Islamist states and Religiously Secular Enlightenment State is not one of “freedom of worship” vs. “lack of freedom of worship,” but rather it is a question by what standard will worship be restricted? For the Islamist the standard is the Koran. For the Enlightenment R2K fan-boys the standard for restricting worship will be humanist positive law that marches under the banner of “Natural law.”

3.) The texts that give guidance are present for both the Islamist and the Enlightenment liberal. If one were to examine the Humanist Manifestos one would see the text that the Enlightenment liberal has been guided by. Now you won’t find the Enlightenment liberal waving the humanist manifesto around like a Islamist waves around the Koran as their authority, but an examination of the humanist manifesto indicates that the principles there are just as guiding for the Enlightenment liberal as the Koran is guiding for the Muslim.

4.) If Lewis thinks that the Enlightenment Liberal Theocratic State, in terms of commanding and forbidding, is any different then the Islamist state he must be smoking peyote. NYC forbids drinking sodas larger than 16 ounces. The Liberal Enlightenment state is working on forbidding private gun ownership. The Liberal Enlightenment State will be commanding and forbidding all over the place once Obamacare is in place. Again, the difference between the commanding and forbidding is not in terms of kind but only in terms of standard.

5.) This brings us to understanding that just as in any contest between Islam and unbelief finds the Islamic State dominating, so in any contest between the Liberal Enlightenment State and unbelief in the Liberal Enlightenment religion, the Liberal Enlightenment State must likewise dominate. Just try finding a soda for sale in NYC that is over 16 ounces. The Liberal Enlightenment Theocratic State that R2K supports requires a way of life just as much as the Muslim theocratic State.

Only in a Christian State does this kind of dominating suffocating Government find itself held in check. It is held in check because in a Christian civilization there is a understanding that the Government has a limited jurisdiction and beyond that jurisdiction it may not tread. In a Christian civilization, civil Government is diffused and Government as a whole is located in different jurisdictions (Guild, Family, Church, etc). This prevents what Lewis notes about the Muslim State and prevents what he misses being true in the Enlightenment Liberal state.

Because the above paragraph is true no Biblical Christian sounds like a Muslim; accusations from Radical Two Kingdom fan-boys notwithstanding. What R2K advocates want when they fulminate against Biblical government is in point of fact Theocratic Enlightenment Liberal government where, because freedom of religion is absolutized, they can advocate for the tolerance of abortion, sodomite marriage, and any number of other social deviance. In short they desire to set up a Liberal Enlightenment Theocratic Caliph where they as the Priests for the Caliph can bring dissenters before their denominations and have them banned for speaking out against their Caliph. R2K, as the Caliph’s muscle do such a great impersonation of the Turks.

Obviously a Misprint

“For our present purposes it is also crucial to note that Israel’s experience under the law of Moses in the Promised Land of Canaan was _not_ meant to exemplify life under the _two_ kingdoms… First, unlike Abraham, the Israelites were not sojourners in the land.”

David Van Drunen
Living in God’s Two Kingdoms p. 89

Insert clearing throat sound

“Also the land shall not be sold to be cut off [from the family]: for the land is mine, [and] ye be but strangers and sojourners with me. Therefore in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption of the land.”

Lev. 25:23-24, 1599 Geneva trans.

Ask The Pastor — How Can Cultural Institutions Be Christian?

Dear Pastor,

How can you talk about various social order Institutions being Christian? Don’t you see that the Institutions in any given culture cannot be Christian Institutions in and of themselves if only because those Institutions are common to all men, Christian and non-Christian alike?

Delaney

Dear Delaney

It is not that Institutions are common to all men so much as it is that men are common to all Institutions. As such, Institutions will be Christian, Muslim, Humanist, Hindu, Satanist, Judaistic, dependent upon the men who are animating those Institutions and the Faith that is animating those men.

It is most difficult to speak of a Institution as common to all men without taking into consideration the men who comprise the Institutions.

Remember, Delaney, it is not possible for Institutions to be neutral as if they do not serve the interests of some God or god concept. Cultural Institutions are nothing but a reflection of the theology and the people who staff them.

Also, it will do no good to try to create a distinction that admits that, there are Christian businesses and Christian marriages, and Christian families although commerce, marriage, and family are not Christian institutions in and of themselves.” This will not do, if only because commerce, marriage, and families do not exist without people. To say that there are Christian businesses, marriages, and families, while insisting that commerce, marriage and family are common and therefore neutral is an abstraction of the most intriguing sort.

R2K, Moral Law, Natural Law And It’s (Non) Applicability?

‎ On one hand R2K’ers want to say,

“Natural law is contiguous with Special revelation so that what is true from Natural law is consistent with Scripture.”

They will agree that for the Reformed Scholastics the natural law is synonymous with the moral law. The natural law is rooted in the being of God consistent with by His intellect and His will. It is not just naked authority but eternal moral truth. This natural moral law was written upon the heart of Adam at the creation. It is a part of the image of God.

They will agree that nature and grace are not in conflict. The moral law given in nature and the moral law given Scripture are the same law (as to general equity,i.e. the Ten Commandments).

On the other hand they want to say that the pagan, who is ruled by this Natural law, is not ruled by the imperatives of Scripture.

Those very same imperatives of Scripture that they earlier insisted were consistently articulated in Natural law.

“Biblical morality is characterized by an indicative-imperative structure. That is, all of its imperatives (moral commands) are proceeded (sic) by and grounded in indicatives (statements of fact), either explicitly or implicitly. The most important indicative that grounds the imperatives in Scripture is that the recipients of Scripture are the covenant people, that is, members of the community of the covenant of grace. (39)

Since membership in the civil kingdom is not limited to believers, the imperatives of Scripture do not bind members of that kingdom. These imperatives are not ‘directly applicable to non-Christians'” (40).

David Van Drunen

For R2K, the imperatives of Scripture are not directly applicable to non-Christians and yet, Natural law, which is perfectly consistent with God’s Moral law, would seem to force us to conclude that the imperatives of Scripture, as communicated via Natural Law, would be directly applicable to non Christians.

Am I missing something here?