Category: R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology)

Darryl writes,

Bret,

Believe it or not, I understand that Geneva was different from Philadelphia. Calvin ministered in the shadow of Constantine. All of the creeds from Reformed churches in the 16th century advocate a state church. I think they were mistaken, and I can find teachings in Calvin about the spiritual nature of Christ’s kingdom (not to mention Ursinus) which imply that the church should minister the keys of the kingdom (not the state), and that this ministry is spiritual and moral, not physical or political. But I do honestly get that Geneva had a state church. (I wish the critics of state schools would also see that Geneva had a state school.)

Darry,

There is no shadow of Constantine, if by that you mean, that Constantine can be avoided. All governmental arrangements are Theocracies — whether in a defacto or dejure sense. You seem to keep running right by that.

Second, no theonomist advocates that ministers run the civil realm. You seem to keep implying this and it really is horse hockey. Also, no theonomist denies the spiritual nature of Christ’s Kingdom, if by that you mean that Kingdom is ruled by Word and Sacrament. Still, all because the Kingdom is ruled by Word and Sacrament that doesn’t mean that that spiritual and moral authority doesn’t incarnate itself in a physical and political fashion.

I agree that Geneva had a State School. I don’t think that was, or is, the optimum arrangement since I believe education should belong to the family sphere.

Darryl,

So if you want to stand full-stop behind the 16th c. political/ecclesiastical arrangements, and don’t want to disavow the idea of killing professing believers in Christ’s name, how can you conceivably live with the current political arrangements and subscribe to those creeds?

By professing that the current governmental arrangement, due to its various wicked policies (Roe vs. Wade, Lawrence vs. Texas, Theft on an obscene scale, etc.) no longer has legitimacy. We live under an illegal regimen. We obey because we know that the State can beat us up. We wait for God’s good pleasure to raise up lesser magistrates to petition on our behalf, and failing that, to lead us against wickedness. Until that happens we bear God’s just judgments against us.

Darryl,

Don’t you have to cross your fingers on the civil magistrate? Even the Covenanters in the U.S. had to learn how to participate in the political process without an affirmation of Christ as Lord in the constitution.

In dealing with the current civil magistrate we must be wise as serpents but harmless as doves.

Darry,

So isn’t there something binding on you to take up arms and overthow the current government?

Yes, what is binding on me is that we are currently living under God’s just judgment against us, as exhibited in His punishing us with wicked magistrates. What releases me from that binding is God raising up lesser magistrates to oppose the wicked magistrates. Much like Americans had their magistrates lead them in the American war for Independence and much like Southerners had their magistrates lead them against the wicked Federal magistrates.

Darryl,

I guess I’ll have to deal with what may come if you succeed in grabbing power. But for now it does seem a lot easier to beat up on me when you’re real problem is with a state that has established a church that is anti-God. HOW CAN YOU LIVE WITH YOURSELF!!???!!!

By reminding myself of God’s severe mercy, great providence, that His judgments are altogether just, and that He will turn to my good whatever adversity he sends me in this sad world.

Oh, and by keeping my powder dry for the time that God raises up a righteous magistrate.

Darryl,

I also understand that the government is not fair and balanced, and that neutrality with respect to the God of the universe is impossible for every person. I also understand the problems of public schools and am quite comfortable with parents deciding to home school or send to private schools. What I am troubled by is a good point being used to make up reality. We do not have an established “church” as in something where our citizenship is bound up with worshiping a false god.

That is only because you’re looking in the wrong places. You expect the false God to come up and greet you by saying, “Hi, I am the false God and this is how my worshipers here are worshiping me.” People with eyes wide open clearly see that the God here is Demos (autonomy — The people have become as god) and the established Church is the government schools and while a few citizens fall through the cracks, Demos realizes that if he gets the majority the rest will be insignificant as it comes to control.

Darryl,

Thankfully, we are still able to practice our religion freely in this country. And thankfully, the government does not tell my communion how to conduct its worship. So again its fine if you want to analyze philosophical the problems that attend liberal democracy in the United States. Take a number because the line is getting longer. But that analysis does not give a right to make irresponsible statements either about churches that are really schools, worship that is simply a property tax bill, or government bias that actually protects the way most of us worship both publicly and privately.

You can practice your religion freely? Well, I suppose you can, if your religion is one where it is wrong to condemn wickedness in the high places of the civil realm. Those of us who believe that freedom of religion means that should be allowed to speak prophetically against wickedness have been threatened by the State with various laws prohibiting such religion. It is completely reasonable to note that Schools are Churches. Public teachers are catechizers. Curriculum is catechism. Political correctness taught is the new prayer book. The long day in school is equivalent to the ancient Churches matins, vespers, and lauds. The School has its high holy Days (Martin Luther King B. Day, winter break, spring break, etc.) which is equated with the feast days of old. It’s all there Darryl, you just have to know where to look.

Darryl,

I am an anti-federalist and I think the U.S. went off the rails in 1789. So I have my alarms. But can’t we get a grip on the differences between Geneva in 1560 and Philadelphia in 2008, and can’t we see that somethings are better and some are worse. If we can’t, then how can we tell the difference between real persecution and not having a seat at the table? Maybe I’m a coward (there’s an opening for you, Bret), but I like life.

I like life also Darryl. And obviously you’re very brave in defense of cowardice. I commend you for that. I guess I more inclined to agree with Knox’s estimation of Geneva that, it was “the most perfect school of Christ that ever was in the earth since the days of the Apostles,” then I agree with your apparently high estimation of Philadelphia 2008.

I don’t want a seat at the table Darryl. Since Christ is Lord of the table, I want the table. I agree that we are not suffering real persecution now. But real persecution doesn’t come apart from a process building to that end. I’d like to strangle the baby of persecution in the cradle.

I wish you could get a grip on the whole idea of inevitable categories.

Dr. Darryl Hart opines,

So the state, as you have it, ministers justice and grace and does so only on the basis of God’s word. That sounds like a lot of ministry of the word going on. Maybe you mistyped. Been known to happen.

Obviously, as you no doubt already know, it was indeed a typo. My you are full of sarcasm aren’t you?

This is really simple Darryl. Follow closely.

The ministry of justice according to God’s word is common grace to those to whom it is ministered. The ministry of word and sacrament is special grace to God’s people. See, that was easy. We managed to keep a distinction while at the same time seeing that God is directly sovereign over both.

Please don’t try this at home. This is only safe with the experts.

Dr. Darryl Hart,

Also, if I understand you correctly, there is a defacto state church now, and defacto state administering justice according to God’s word. Or is it the case that something really is different between Geneva in 1560 and Lansing, Mich. in 2008. I know I am dangerously stupid, but your lessons sure are hard to follow. Maybe that’s because neither the state nor the church administer logic.

Yes there is a defacto state Church now. It is the State Church of humanism as promulgated in the State Schools. The defacto justice that the state is administering is the justice of the God Demos according to Demos’ positivist law.

See, not hard to follow Darryl. Why, it’s so simple that even you can play along.

I’ll pass on teaching logic to you. Some things are to difficult … even for the mighty.

Zrim,

So let me get this straight: The brand of compulsory education has a direct effect on the spiritual condition of people.

So, let me get this straight. Sending your children to schools that teach from a Humanist, or Muslim, or Satanist belief system doesn’t have a direct effect on the spiritual condition of people?

Zrim,

So what accounts for all the conflicts in Presbyterian and Reformed circles these days? CVT was a staunch proponent of parochial education and his broader Dutch Reformed tradition agreed with him. Whither his CRC? CSI trucks on with vigor as the CRC devolves with equal steam. Something tells me there is one mammoth disconnect here.

A large accounting of the conflicts in P & R circles is the fact that people like you are pushing a “Christian” agenda that owes more to Aristotelian humanist categories then it does the Bible.

Whither the CRC can be answered by pointing to how the CRC bought into humanist assumptions.

No, mammoth disconnections at all. It all makes quite a bit of sense.

Zrim,

I realize it will be guffawed, but it seems clear to me that what those who lend such a high ordination to the institution of education actually do is betray a low view of the family instead of a high one.

I am to busy guffawing to even begin to answer this.

The family (insofar as it is tucked nicely into the institution of church, of course) is what has the ordained power to nurture or destroy true faith, in mutual conjunction with the church. 8 hours in any sort of school pales in comparison to 1 with mom and dad, especially when that hour is in the pew. Education has its place, importance and dignity. But it isn’t the family. Something tells me that those who over-realize education might be the same ones who over-realize the function of statecraft to do more than it was ordained for as well.

When families turn their covenant seed over to the State schools, they have in essence, substituted the child’s family for the new family found in the State schools. The state schools, through peer pressure, shape the child’s passion. The state schools, through the brainwashing regimen, shape the child’s thought. The child grows up wanting to be like his family, the school, as opposed to the family God intended him to have.

Click to access natural_law_two_kingdoms_bavinck.pdf

This is a piece done by Dr. Nelson Kloosterman of Mid America Seminary. It was a response to Dr. David Van Drunnen’s attempt to suggest that Bavinck had the R2Kt virus. Kloosterman absolutely disembowels VanDrunnen’s argument.

Kudos to Dr. Kloosterman for his work here.

This exchange from Green Baggins

Firearms, theology, and fantasy

Zrim,

I think I am asking questions that mean to get at just what Jesus meant when he said his kingdom was not of this world. Did he mean his kingdom was mostly not of this world or completely transcendent of it?

Bret

Few verses are more misinterpreted than John 18:36 as Steve reveals. B. F. Wescott wrote on this verse, “yet He (Jesus) did claim a sovereignty, a sovereignty which the spring and the source was not of earth but of heaven.” Later Wescott offers, “My Kingdom is not of this world” means it “does not derive its origin or its support from earthly sources.” So we would say that Christ’s Kingdom is not derived from this world, because it is of God and is over the world.

Hence, the answer to your question, (which I think I’ve answered before in our delightful conversations elsewhere) is that Christ’s Kingdom, because it is heavenly in origin, transforms the Kingdoms of this World into the Kingdoms of Christ. The way you define transcendent Steve is to make Sovereignty mean “sovereign in the transcendent realm where the Kingdom exists.”

We should follow Bavinck here by admitting that grace restores nature.

Zrim,

From what I can tell so far, you agree with the Liberals that Jesus should come down off the Cross and fix things in the here and now. But remember that Herod had all the male children aged two and under killed. While it might scrape 21st century American sensibilities about the preciousness and innocence of youth, as well as notions of human rights and entitlements (it sure does mine), the Bible never casts infanticide so much the problem as keeping Jesus from his task.

Bret

Um … Steve… I hate to be the first to tell you this … but Jesus did come down from the cross and was raised on the third day and then after weeks of post-resurrection ministry He ascended into heaven where He sits at the right hand of the Father ruling as our mediatorial King over every area of life.

Jesus is one of those guys that can both be about the task of pronouncing reconciliation while at the same time being clearly opposed to the holocaust of the unborn. I know it disappoints you to think that Jesus can both fix problems in the here and now and call in His elect.

Zrim,

I use the term fetus-politics to indicate a form of moralism in the ranks (political to be exact). I don’t have femme-politics, so I don’t use the term the way they do. I get what you mean about inherent human rights for all persons, in- and ex-vitro, and could easily agree to it. But that’s a generally ideological and specifically American argument.

Bret

Oh Baloney!

First, all ideology stems from some theology. Therefore you cannot refer to something as a ideological argument without at the same time realizing that it is a theological argument.

Second, thou shalt not murder is not an American argument. It is a Biblical argument.

Third you would give up the form of moralism for a form of immoralism. But, hey who knows, immoralism for one culture may be moralism for another culture. We can never know for sure since different cultures are going to come to different conclusions about the way they interpret natural law.

Steve,

I want to know what in Calvinism says any particular group of people (unborn or women) has rights that supersede the other. I thought Calvinism said that all deserve death, that no one is righteous, etc.

Bret

That scripture teaches that all deserve death doesn’t mean it advocates that all people die. That scripture teaches that all deserve death doesn’t mean its alright to sit by and watch as some are delivered over to death.

Though, I’m glad to agree with you that we would be better served to speak of having duties and not rights. We have duties to God and our neighbor. One of those duties is to love our neighbor. Love for neighbor, would seem to include, creating a culture of life. That sounds very Calvinistic to me.

Zrim,

Those are hardly encouraging notions for those who think the Bible implies the Bill of Rights. But I guess since plenty believe they can find Franklin-esque colloquialisms like, “cleanliness is next to godliness” in the Bible it should be not so surprising that others find certain politics there as well.

Bret

Actually, Steve, if you were to spend some time reading Witte or Bergman you would discover that much of the Bill of Rights does indeed stem out of Scripture.

But your to busy trying to mock the whole notion of Christian politics, Christian economics, Christian education, Christian family and who knows what else to realize that the Bible does indeed speak to these areas.

Avoid the virus.