Category: R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology)

“In the first place, Christian theism maintains that the subject of knowledge owes its existence to God. Accordingly, all its interpretive powers are from God and must therefore be reinterpretive powers. In the second place when the subject of knowledge is to come into contact with the object of knowledge, the connection is possible only because God has laid it there. In other words, the subject-object relation has its validity via God. Theologically expressed, we say the that the validity of human knowledge in general rests upon the testimonium Spiritus Sancti. In addition to this, Christian theism maintains that since sin has come into the world, no subject of knowledge can really come into contact with any object of knowledge, in the sense of interpreting it properly, unless the Scripture give the required light and unless the regeneration of the Spirit give a new power of sight.

In opposition to this, that antitheist holds it to be self-evident that the subject of knowledge exists in its own right and can interpret truly without any reference to God. The ‘natural man’ claims to be able to interpret nature and history properly without the need of any reference to God. The ‘natural man’ claims to be able to interpret nature and history properly without the need of any reference to God, to Scripture, or to regeneration.

It follows from this clear-cut difference, a difference that goes to the bottom so that not a single ‘fact’ or ‘law’ is left for neutral territory, that the one group must naturally regard the other as being blind. Accordingly, it is when the subject-subject relation comes up, that the problem as to what one group thinks of the other group, becomes acute. The reason why Christians have not always been alive to this difficulty is that they have not always been consistent in drawing the distinction between the Christian theistic and the antitheistic system of epistemology clearly and fully. All to often they have allowed a hazy fringe to remain when it came to the question of whether unbelievers really know material facts aright. Christianity has all to often been interpreted in a narrowly soteriological [salvational] fashion.”

Cornelius Van Til
A Survey Of Christian Epistemology — pg. 184-185

For the life of me, I don’t know how R2Kt chaps can claim to be Van Tillian given this kind of quote. Given this kind of language does anybody believe that Van Til would have countenanced the use of Natural law for the common realm?

Zrimec

Says the theonomist. But I wouldn’t expect he who is trying to circumvent human sin to actually admit that he is trying to circumvent human sin. I don’t expect Arminians to admit they undercut grace, nor Romanists to admit they anathematize the gospel.

This reinforces the anti-nomian nature of R2Kt thinking. Reformed people for generations have understood that the the second use of the law sets a standard of righteousness for the civil realm. This is all the Theonomist is contending for. Apparently R2Kt types don’t believe in the second use of the law.

So, Theonomy doesn’t try to circumvent sin but rather is crying for God’s law to be the law that sets a standard for what is and is not crime. Zrimec is insisting that God’s law is not the standard for what is and isn’t crime. I don’t expect those who are public square antinomians to actually admit they are trying to get rid of the second use of the law just as I don’t expect Arminians to admit they undercut grace, nor Romanists to admit they anathematize the gospel.

Yes, sin is still quite present (in both worship and the civil realm). But worship isn’t primarily an enterprise in law but gospel. Worship isn’t concerned for the ordering of society or even the church. Worship is a response to God’s gospel; worship is the simultaneous response to and perpetuation of a theology. Is the Reformed notion of the RPW the superior formulation of Christian worship? Yes. Does that mean human sin is eradicated when it’s enacted? Not by a long shot. But, then again, that isn’t the point. But even when the cause is to order society (i.e. an endeavor in law), the point still isn’t to marginalize sin but keep evil at bay and maximize the good. My take on theonomy isn’t that it is not simply trying to do the latter, as if it were all that innocent. I am not sure how the concern for the ordering of society should be of such import over against, or even in tandem with, the propagation of the gospel, seeing as how there is absolutely zero data in the NT that even begins to imply that sort of arrangement in priority.

Once again we see the dispensational tendency of acting if the Old Testament doesn’t exist or doesn’t inform the New Testament. But Zrimec is wrong about his NT reading. First we have the great commission which as it is fulfilled among nations always leads to the re-ordering of society. How could the re-ordering of society not be the case where people embrace Jesus and are taught to observe all things which Jesus commands? We see a brief example of this re-ordering of society in Acts 19. Paul has spent a good deal of time in Ephesus teaching and the consequence is that a reordering of society begins to take place in the economic and civil realm to the point that those of the old order who were threatened by the Gospel’s re-ordering of society created a riot.

“I don’t know, Colin, other than to say theonomists evidently don’t listen to their Augustinian-Calvinism very well. I mean, if you are suggesting an innocence by association then the FV should be left alone, as well as the abiding “Bapterinism” in the ranks or Framian notions of intelligibility against the RPW (the list could go on). Remember, the Remonstrants came out of Reformed churches. Reformed have never been ones to give each other a pass simply because of close association—they even devote one whole form of unity against the errors of their closer associates while giving only a passing mention of Romanist errors (HC Q/A 80).

I quite agree with Zrimec here. What Reformed people need to do is purge R2Kt people from their midst. All because they have been closely associated with Calvinist for a long time means nothing at all in terms of their grave error. Whether theonomists or R2Kt types have been around Calvinists a long time is irrelevant. If theonomists have to low a view of sin and are trying to circumvent sin they should be tossed just as R2Kt types should be tossed if they are libertines, anabaptists and antinomians. Clearly though if you put libertines in charge of ruling on theonomy it will go bad for theonomy just as if you put those who esteem the second use of the law in charge of ruling R2Kt it will go bad for the virus.

My Arminians are only scared of theonomy when the theonomists speak as consistently as they ought (like you all). I tell them that this is them, but only when the decibels are cranked up, they get their act together and realize what it leads to. Just as the theonomists don’t listen very well to their Calvinism, Arminians and Pelagians don’t seem to understand that theonomy is really the logical result of their system. (And if I may be permitted to wax personal, it was precisely the out-of-control culture wars in my former funda-Arminian ranks that played large part in my own defection to the dark side of a strict Calvinism. The similarities between theonomy and culture war obsessed Arminians is about as stark as anything I’ve ever seen. Theonomy is the Reformed version of a broad funda-evangelicalism, no matter how much it wraps itself up in the Reformed confessions.)

Theonomy is the result of Pelagianism the way that pregnancy is a result of the fluoride in the water. If you want a more natural fit I would recommend the observation that R2Kt is a result of ana-baptist thought. R2Kt types don’t listen very well to Calvin who said things like.

“But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542

And again,

Psalm 2

“…without a doubt he is speaking of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus. He admonishes all kings and authorities to be wise and to take heed to themselves. What is this wisdom? What is the lesson He gives them? To abdicate it all? Hardly! But to fear God and give homage to His Son…Furthermore, Isaiah prophesies that the kings will become the foster fathers of the Christian church and that queens will nurse it with their breasts (Isa. 49:23).I beg of you, how do you reconcile the fact that kings will be protectors of the Christian Church if their vocation is inconsistent with Christianity?”

Calvin, Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 79

Looks like Calvin himself is guilty of Zrimec’s charge of being an evange-fundamentalist. Was Calvin also Pelagian Steve?

Finally, though Zrimec may want to close his eyes and wish for it to go all away the culture wars are with us and they are going find wherever anybody tries to hide. We wouldn’t be having them were it not for the way R2Kt has contributed to the problem.

Yeow, you might want to pick up Meuther’s recent bio on CVT. It’s good for documenting how CVT deliberately resisted and regretted theonomy, the efforts of its architects to foist patron sainthood upon him notwithstanding. But maybe CVT just didn’t even fathom his own presuppositions and it took Greg, Gary and RJ to point them out to him? But for my money, CVT knew what he was rejecting and regretting, just like Machen knew this creature called “Fundamentalism” was not good for the Presbyterian soul.

It is true that Van Til disavowed his child. But in terms of movements that arose around his thinking he was consistently sanguine about all of them.

Steve Zrimec offered,

“The basic problem in any form of theonomy is that in its ironic striving to show forth faithfulness it actually demonstrates less faith, not more. It has great doubt as to the natural law inscribed by God onto the hearts of all men and that is really good enough to get the world from one day to the next in relatively one piece. This is the religious version of not employing one’s mind, conscience, eyes or feet each day simply because these things fail us all the time. If God endowed us with eyes, however sinful, should we really refuse to look simply because we have astigmatism? I know, I know, special revelation is supposed to be like a pair of glasses. But even spectacles can’t correct for every defect. The problem theonomy is trying to circumvent is sin. But no matter how much special revelation one wants to bring to bear on natural revelation sin will always keep things frustrated.”

The great problem with R2Kt theology is that in its striving to be faithless it succeeds tremendously. It has great confidence in Natural law contradicting its professions of presuppositionalism. Presuppositionalism teaches that man must presuppose God in order to reason aright, and yet R2Kt aficionados want to insist that autonomous man, presupposing and starting from himself can read the natural law quite apart from starting with God. So for the R2Kt guys, man must start with God in the spiritual realm to come to truth but in the natural realm man can start with himself and come to truth. The reality of God thus becomes completely irrelevant for knowledge as it pertains to the common realm. Zrimec is practicing common realm agnosticism.

Second Zrimec should realize that it is God who has called us to Holiness not theonomist. Zrimec, quite possibly because of his pessimistic eschatology (amillenialism) has a significantly under-realized eschatology. For Zrimec sin will always keep things frustrated. Zrimec has sin abounding much more than grace. Zrimec seems to suggest that since sin can’t be circumvented sin shouldn’t be contended against. Since we can’t win why battle?

Finally, Zrimec plainly underestimates the power of God in sanctification.

“Vern has a point. Instead of seeing this as a problem of being “too American,” theonomy actually suffers from way too low a doctrine of human sin. Sure, the last four letters in American are “I Can!” but that only proves that Americanism suffers from the same thing theonomy does.”

Actually, the whole premise of Church and State in America is based upon R2Kt reasoning and so it is R2Kt that reflects the American spirit. In the end the problem with Zrimec is that he suffers from way to low of an estimation of the power of God in sanctification.

Bret, can you give some examples of how theonomists are suffering today?

Is it not suffering enough to see God’s Word cast aside so that in 35 years we have suffered through a holocaust almost equal to the 50 Million that Stalin exterminated in Russia? Is it not suffering enough for the person who loves the Glory of God and His Christ to see His Glory diminished in the public square? Is it not suffering of one kind to have to live with the opprobrium, ridicule and calumny heaped up upon the theonomist by both God haters and those who say they love God? How many theonomists have not been ordained because of their convictions? How many theonomist have not been given plumb positions at Christian Educational establishments because of their convictions? (Bahnsen at Westminster East comes immediately to mind)

But if your question implies that none of them are locked up in prisons (yet) I would be glad to concede that. But then suffering comes in all shapes and sizes and in varying degrees doesn’t it Todd?

“The early church, good 2k folk :-), suffered, not because they were challenging and criticizing Caesar’s unrighteous rule, but that they refused to worship him as a god. Given that choice I would hope all true Christians, whether theonomic or 2k, would suffer instead of worship Caesar.”

Part of the problem with R2Kt people, in my estimation, is that they don’t really understand what idolatry is. They seem to think that if they can avoid bowing down to a flag then they are innocent of idolatry. However, I would contend that Christians do worship Caeser as God when they send their little children to government schools. Other examples could be elucidated. So, with that expanded definition of idolatry it becomes an open question of whether or not Christians would rather suffer instead of worshiping Caesar.

Stuart Robinson suffered under Lincoln exactly because he was 2k, and even the Southern Presbyterians were suspicious of him.

Don’t know much about him. You’ll have to fill me in. Still, quite apart from the particulars I understand how Tyrants could be threatened by R2Kt types. I have read stories of the time during the war of Northern Aggression where Pastors refused the orders of the occupying Union Army to pray for the President upon 2k type principles and they were run out of town.

“The true churches under Hitler were persecuted because they would not use the pulpit to throw their support behind Hitler’s policies. Thus both 2kers and more theonomist types were persecuted. The charge that only theonomists would suffer under such regimes is unfounded.”

I never denied that R2Kt types would eventually be persecuted. I quite admit that in a dualistic system such as R2Kt that the realm of nature committed to anti-Christ principles will eventually swallow whole the common realm and then will turn on the realm of grace. At that point, persecution will come. My point was that theonomy, quite to the contrary of Hart’s assertion, does know persecution and that even more so then R2Kt types since theonomist are willing to tackle the beast before it begins to swallow the Church.

“Now, there is a sense that many theonomists will suffer before 2kers, but I would argue that this is because they lack respect for the governing authorities. Again, go to Acts 25 & 26 and see how respectfully Paul addressed his civil authorities, and remember, these were atrocious leaders. And then go to Daniel’s blog and see his headline ‘Barak Obama is a Nazi.'”

Naturally, Todd, I would disagree with the first sentences, unless you would like to add that because of their respect for the Lord Christ the governing authorities see them as lacking respect.

Also while reading Acts 25, 26 we should read Acts 16 where we find the Apostle speaking a bit more directly to magistrates. Also we have our Lord Jesus calling Herod a “Fox” which was quite a strong appellation in that culture and at that time. Finally, there is the inspired language of John the Revelator which is also quite forceful. So, I would say Scripture is a mixed bag on that score.

And, I would say that Barack Obama is more of a fabian socialist then a Nazi. So, Daniel’s error was in placing in the wrong category of Socialist. Hardly something to get worked up about.

“Now can you imagine the Apostle Paul speaking like this about Agrippa or Festus? While Daniel would consider these statements bold and prophetic, I would say they violate the clear teaching of I Pet 1:13-17. So yes, in one sense the theonomists will suffer more, but that isn’t always a good thing.”

Yes, and I imagine that if had been alive during the time of Elijah on Mt. Carmel you would have tried to take him aside when he was mocking, in very jagged language, the priest of Baal.

“Mr. Glaser, thanks for quoting that part of the confession. The use of the word “dispensations” suggests that there may actually be a place for Reformed dispensationalism. (And before the charges of Marcionism fly, please remember the hallowed Westminster divines used the word. If you have issues, take it up with them. Don’t bang me over the head with it.)”

Nobody has ever suggested, as Dr. Hart no doubt knows, that there is anything wrong with the word “dispensations.” Reformed Dispensationalism is not serious error because it has the word “Dispensation” attached to the word “Reformed.” No, the problem is that like genuine dispensationalism, Reformed Dispensationalism desires to presuppose discontinuity. This is quite contrary to historic Reformed positions that consistently presupposed continuity understanding that the covenant of grace was one.

In my estimation the Reformed Dispensationalism (synonymous with R2Kt) does leave itself open to the charge of Marcionism. This can be seen when many Reformed faces go ashen when it is suggested that the penal sanctions of the Old Testament should be followed. Does the horror of their response lie in their idea that God was somehow mean to require those penalties enacted in the Old Covenant age but now in this age God has dropped His severe mien and has become kinder and gentler? One thing is certain and that is Natural Law certainly can be easily (and wrongly) perceived by Reformed Dispensationalists as kinder and gentler than what God’s Law requires.

That part of the confession also seems to fly in the face of good, women’s ordination-tolerating, pastor Bret.

God’s judgments against His people are all together just. Part of His judgment against us is the reality of the ungodly practice of ordaining women. Similarly, part of His judgment against us is the reality of the ungodly theological system that is R2Kt. Until God lifts his hand of judgment against the Church we must labor under those judgments as faithfully as possible. I don’t like women being ordained. I don’t like R2Kt. But each are part of the terrain of the current Church in which I must be as faithful as possible.

“The WCF says that with the church the gospel is “administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory” than the old dispensation. It seems to me that theonomy is not content with the simplicity and lack of glory in the current arrangement of the church. But then take a number on that discontent. Plenty of Presbyterians are not content with the churches spiritual weapons. They seem to want the outward glory of universities, cities, nation-states, modern medicine, art — you name it — to carry the name Christian.”

And that simplicity was seen in the Churches that the puritans built as well as the style of speaking they developed. Nobody disagrees on this.

But in the other spheres the Gospel isn’t being administered, so I am not quite sure what Dr. Hart’s point here is in raising this part of the WCF. Nobody from the theonomy school has suggested that the civil or familial realm should be administering the Gospel in Word & Sacrament. All we have contended is that what Dr. Hart styles “common realm” is not neutral. For my part I am quite satisfied with the more simplicity and less outward glory of the administration of the Gospel in this dispensation. I would join Dr. Hart in locked arms in the admonishing of those who desire a gospel that partakes of a theology of glory in the Church.

Dr. Hart’s complaints about Christians desiring “the outward glory of universities, cities, nation-states, modern medicine, art, is just another example of his presupposing that the common realm can only be neutral. Hart makes a curious and unwarranted jump in his reasoning from the administration of the Gospel being less outwardly glorious to both the idea that education, nation states, modern-medicine and art can’t be Christian and to the idea that having Christian education, nation state, modern-medicine and art is somehow glorious in a sinister and God dishonoring kind of way.

“Please be clear, Bret, I never said the state doesn’t exist. I said the Christian state doesn’t exist, and if we had a Christian state, it was Israel. Israel as a Christian state no longer exists.”

Of course a thousand years of Christendom gives quite excellent contrary testimony to the wrong headedness of Darryl’s assertion.

If you populate a region with Muslims you will get a Muslim state. If you populate a region with Jews you will get a Jewish State. If you populate a region with Secular Humanists you will get America. Similarly, if you populate a region with Christians you will get a Christian state. Any denial of that simple premise is just a determined stubbornness in the face of “self-evident” truths. (A little Natural Law lingo there.)

You’re living in denial if you want to reclaim it. You’re living what Calvin called a Judaic Folly.

You mean the same Calvin who said,

“But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542

I should add that the Christian state that does exist is the Church, which practices the only Christian form of government in this age, jure divino Presbyterianism.

Calvin doesn’t agree with you on that point Darryl,

Psalm 2

“…without a doubt he is speaking of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus. He admonishes all kings and authorities to be wise and to take heed to themselves. What is this wisdom? What is the lesson He gives them? To abdicate it all? Hardly! But to fear God and give homage to His Son…Furthermore, Isaiah prophesies that the kings will become the foster fathers of the Christian church and that queens will nurse it with their breasts (Isa. 49:23).I beg of you, how do you reconcile the fact that kings will be protectors of the Christian Church if their vocation is inconsistent with Christianity?”

Calvin, Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Libertines, p. 79

Anyway, all theonomists, hard or soft core, living in the United States are functional 2k Christians, unless they are trying to overthrow this current regime.

I would say that praying that the current regime might be overthrown counts as trying to overthrow this current regime.

The Covenanters even knew this and that’s why they forbade their members from voting or holding pubilc office. (The RPCNA also capitulated sometime around 1980 and reversed these positions.) But if you vote, pay taxes, say the pledge of allegiance, stand for the Star Spangled banner an an MLB game, you are submitting to an idolatrous and illegitimate regime. Even more, if you use the means of this constitutional republic to secure a Christian state in America, you are also committing a form of idolatry (by your logic) because by running for office or passing laws or voting within the structures of a government that does not recognize Christ as Lord or the Bible as the basis for law, you are feeding the beast.

I don’t stand for the Star spangled banner and I don’t say the pledge of allegiance.

When I vote I vote for those who are committed to overthrowing the current regime that has overthrown the constitution.

I don’t make enough to pay taxes so that is not a concern, and if I did I’d pay taxes because the state can beat me up and so I choose to be wise as a serpent on this score.

I have no intent to feed the beast but earnestly desire to give it a belly ache.

“So which is it, Bret, are you against King George or are you for him? If you’re against, as you suppose in trying to out me as not being a supporter of the American revolution, then you are for the godless U.S.A., a nation conceived in the idolatry of the Enlightenment (as Daniel argues), a nation that will not recognize Christ as Lord.”

I would disagree with whoever argued that America was conceived in the idolatry of the Enlightement though I would concede that the Constitution is a synthesis document between Enlightenment and Christian ideas. I read it as a Christian and so I believe it is a Christian document. I would say that the War for Independence was a conservative counter revolution born of Christian beliefs on the consequences of violated covenants.

So, I quite disagree with your premise that being against King George is being for the godless U.S.A. as she was originally constituted.

Next, as the 9 of 13 colonies at the signing of the Declaration of Independence had established Churches I don’t know how anyone could say that these United States were godless in their origin.

You’re premise, as many of them are in general, is, once again, mistaken here.

So once again the $64k question: how do you live with yourself? Your infidelity is legion by your own logic. (Reed and other moderators, I am not trying to call names. I am trying to get the theonomists to come clean and see how they are implicated in the very names they call the 2k advocates. Daniel encouraged me at one point to “shut up.” I’d reiterate that point a little more politely and ask the theonomists to keep their convictions a little more quiet until they have the nerve to use their vitriol against the very state they honor and to which they submit.)

You keep asking about this $64.00 question and I keep answering it. You somehow seem to think it is some type of clincher. I assure you it most certainly isn’t.

The answer is that we submit until God raises up lesser magistrates to lead against this current regime, such as he did in the War for American Independence. This is a idea with long historical Reformed legs and one that makes your $64.00 question not worth a plug nickel in terms of somehow being a clincher argument.

But there is one more thing I want to note here before moving on. Recently I went to a play titled “The Rose Of Treason.” The thrust of the play was resistance to the German government in 1943 by young university students. There was one scene in the play where the students, having been captured, are tried. During the trial one of the judges severely lectures the students for their treason in light of all that the National Socialist system had provided for them. Sometimes Darryl you sound like that Judge in the play. You constantly insist that it is inconsistent to take advantage of a culture that one is praying that God would overthrow. You mistake, like the Judge in the play, the difference between loving your country and loathing the State.

“Word of warning: theonomists be careful how you react here. The Patriot Act is still in effect and the FBI could be looking for expressions of sedition.”

Well, the state only need to worry about me if they think that praying for its overthrow is something that they seriously need to be worried about.