Category: Theology

Christopher Dawson & McAtee; The Relationship Between Religion & Culture

“The idea that culture is embodied religion runs through Dawson’s writings. According to this view, every culture in its origins has religion at its center, and we may speak of culture as a kind of enfleshment of religion over time. Culture is the sum of ways in which some religion becomes embodied in material forms and patterns of life.”

Christopher Dawson
The Crisis of Western Education
Introduction – Glen W. Olsen

1.) Those who desire to champion two Kingdom thinking can never understand this truth because for them religion/theology belongs in a very circumscribed realm. For two Kingdom chaps religion/theology is one thing while politics, education, arts, family life, philosophy, etc. are all quite different things. Indeed, the two kingdom chaps insist that religion/theology must stay out of these other areas that are the very marrow of culture. Dawson (and Henry Van Til, and all worldview thinkers protested vehemently.

2.) For those with eyes to see all of life, not least of which includes culture, is a window into the soul of those moving through life. From the way a man dresses to the way that they speak to the way that they drive to the foods that they eat are all contributory expressions of the religion/theology they embrace and so animates them. Habits, as well as culture, are the movie screen on which the theology of people(s) is cast.

3.) Because this is true understanding culture grants one the prophetic/predictive ability of what people will do next. This is because people act consistent with their culture/habits. Because that is true one can build on the ability of understanding people by understanding their culture (religion).

4.) This also explains why parents must be careful about the education of their children. The role of the educator is to catechize the student into the religion/theology that is the driving of the curriculum being used. There is no curriculum, nor study, nor textbook that isn’t at the same time inculcating some religion/theology. We would also add that this explains why parents should be careful with the friends they allow their children to make. All potential friends are theology containers. Are those potential friends of your children carriers of the theology/religion that you, as a parent, desire your children to be influenced by?

5.) I note all this fully understanding that Dawson himself believed that Christian culture had a kind of dualism at heart. At this point I believe Dawson was inconsistent with his own project. All of culture is religiously/theologically integrated so as to from one expression of the same religion/theology.

Is “Saving People From Their Sins” the Ultimate Mission of the Church? A Repudiation of “Reformed” Rev. Chrissy Gordon

“DeYoung expressed, ‘Pugnacity and jocularity are not the occasional and unfortunate by-products of the brand; they are the brand.’ He’s exactly correct. As Christendom has collapsed in the West, Wilson has offered a vision that plays on the fears and emotions of those who are panicking. This is precisely why the mission of the church, all of the sudden, takes a drastic turn in its elevating of cultural transformation while ‘saving people from their sins’ becomes only a means to this greater end.”

Rev. Chrissy Gordon
R2K “Minister”
Quote from 2023

1.) Could anybody tell me what is wrong with toughness and humor (pugnacity and jocularity) being the type of Christianity one lives? Is this a case where people like DeYoung and Gordon are offended by having a sense of humor? Clearly, no one will be accusing DeYoung and Gordon of having the toughness required in order to be accused of being “pugnacious.”

2.) The Reformed have always believed that “saving people from their sins” is only the means to a greater end. It is the Lutherans, historically, who believed that “saving people from their sins” was the end of the message of the Gospel. Contrary to Lutherans, the Reformed always held that “saving people from their sins” was only a means to the higher end of a people determined to live for the glory of God. One of those ways people live for the glory of God is the cultural transformation that is the product of saved people seeking to live for the glory of God.

“Perhaps most striking is the difference in emphasis on justification between Luther and Lutheranism on the hand and Reformed theology on the other. For the former, justification is central to the whole of theology. It is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. It functions as a kind of critical methodological tool by which any aspect of theology, or theology as a whole is to be judged….However, there is hardly an instance in Reformed theology placing justification in the center. Not that Reformed theology opposed justification by faith alone, or salvation by pure grace. On the contrary, they saw salvation in its entirety as a display of the sovereign and free mercy of God. The explanation lay in the fact that, for Reformed theology, everything took place to advance the glory of God. Thus the chief purpose of theology and of the whole of life was not the rescue of humanity but the glory of God. The focus was theocentric rather than soteriological.”

Robert Letham
The Work of Christ – p. 189-190

Another way to put the differences between Lutheranism (what Gordon is trying to sell) and Reformed worldviews is that for Lutheranism salvation is for man and terminates on man, individually considered while for Reformed thought salvation is for God and serves the terminating end of a renewed cosmos dripping and saturated with God’s glory. For Lutheranism the teleology is man atoned for, whereas for Reformed thought the teleology includes but doesn’t end with man atoned for. For Reformed thought the teleology is the atonement as well as all the totality of corresponding and inevitable consequences that the atonement brings upon men who have been atoned for. Atonement for individual men is not the end product of Christ’s work. Atonement is the beginning and creating point of enlisting men into the cause of cosmic renewal for the glory of God. Men are not atoned for and saved for the sake of being atoned for and saved. Men are atoned for and saved to be put on a mission to take captive every thought and take dominion over every crevice of the cosmos to make all thoughts and all crevices obedient to King Christ. In Reformed thought, classical Lutheran thought is provincial and anthropocentric and is far to horizontally circumscribed and vertically nugatory.

Whatever Gordon is expressing here (I think it is Lutheranism) this is not the way the Reformed have thought over the centuries.

In other words… Rev. Gordon is just flat out in error here. However, nobody is surprised by Rev. Gordon and error going together like peas and carrots.

Justification Remains Controversial

Romans 3:

Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all [f]and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified [g]freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a [h]propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

60. How are you righteous before God? Only by true faith in Jesus Christ:1 that is, although my conscience accuses me, that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them,2 and am still prone always to all evil;3 yet God, without any merit of mine,4 of mere grace,5 grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction,6 righteousness, and holiness of Christ,7 as if I had never committed nor had any sins, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me;8 if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart.9

[1] Rom. 3:21–25; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8–9; Phil. 3:9. [2] Rom. 3:9–10. [3] Rom. 7:23. [4] Tit. 3:5. [5] Rom. 3:24; Eph. 2:8. [6] 1 Jn. 2:2. [7] 1 Jn. 2:1; Rom. 4:4–5; 2 Cor. 5:19. [8] 2 Cor. 5:21. [9] Jn. 3:18; *Rom. 3:28; *Rom. 10:10.

We can never do justice to the doctrine of Justification. Never. Calvin said of this doctrine “it is the main hinge on which religion turns.” If it is the main hinge we should be conversant with the ins and outs of the doctrine.

With the doctrine of Justification we find the grand divide that still divides the Reformed Church from the rest of what we charitably call “Christendom.” This is the issue of how it is that fallen man can have relationship with God. For us, this doctrine of Justification is a staple but we need to return to it constantly because our enemies and Christ’s enemies are prolific when it comes to how we answer the question how can a fallen sinner have peace with a God that is Holy beyond all naming. This was seen again recently when Tucker Carlson interviewed a blog personality from Eastern Orthodoxy.

The answer to how man can be righteous before God continues to be, as Luther said, the article by which the church stands or falls. On this score there remains a divide between the classical Reformed world and everybody else. The Reformed insist that this being right with God – This justification is God’s legal declaration of God that the faith filled sinner is right with God due to the alien righteousness of Jesus Christ being laid to his account. This is why the Catechism uses the language,

yet God, without any merit of mine,4 of mere grace,5 grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction,6 righteousness, and holiness of Christ,7 as if I had never committed nor had any sins, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me;

And it is why Romans can say,

God is both just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

God is just because our sins that stand in the way of being right with God are penalized in the death of Christ and God is the justifier because He is the judge who raise and lowers the gavel and pronouncing the legal declaration of “not-guilty” upon the sinner in the dock for the sake of Jesus Christ.

This idea of the legal declaration of God that there is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus is what the Scripture defines as Justification.

Other options to define Justification exist though…. one is hinted at here in what Paul says in Romans. This non-Biblical option defining Justification is that man can have concourse with God by means of fallen man’s own law keeping. But the Holy Spirit says expressly here;

“by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”

Here the Apostle is referring to what we now call “the first use of the law.” God’s law has several purpose and one purpose is to expose sin. This first use of the law is only purposed to give the knowledge of sin. It’s use does not include the relieving of sin through an impossible to provide obedience as offered up by fallen man.

The law, thus, in its first use can not find man to be right with God and so be justified in God’s sight. All it can do is give the knowledge of and convict of sin.

And yet despite this clear and indisputable statement by the Holy Spirit here the enemies of the Reformed faith … the Christian faith continue to line up to insist that the 1st use of the law can be obeyed enough so as fallen man can make contribution to being justified in God’s sight.

Recently, this was seen again in a popular Journalism format as Tucker Carlson interviewed an adherent to Eastern Orthodoxy (EO). This chap took several swipes at the Biblical doctrine of Justification / that is the Reformed faith.

Now the essence of this EO chaps complaint is that the Biblical teaching we find here in Romans and summarized in the HC is that the Reformed believe that Justification (being right with God) is not a matter of God’s legal declaration that we are right w/ God for the sake of Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us but rather we are right w/ God because he makes us right. Here Rome and EO agree,

The Catholic Catechism (1992) quotes Trent: “justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.”

We see here that Justification is being re-defined away from what we just read in Romans,

22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all [f]and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified [g]freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

For all non Reformed doctrines of Justification, Justification is defined not as a legal declaration of being righteous with the righteousness of Jesus Christ but rather Justification is synergistic… that is Justification is God and man working together to the end that man eventually becomes righteous so that God can accept man as right with him.

That man must cooperate with God unto the end of finally being in himself Just before God declares him Just is classic religious humanism thought. Consider

“You don’t earn [justification] in any way. You *do* have to *do things* to *maintain it* and *increase it.*”

Joe Heschmeyer Catholic Apologist

Note the cooperation mode between man and God here. Despite saying “you don’t earn justification,” immediately there is spoken here the necessity of us doing the doing in justification. Religious humanism just can’t get away from our contributing to Justification.


The difference between these two definitions of Justification is the difference between Christianity and religious Humanism called Christianity. Non Reformed, that is non-Biblical systems of thought insist that God makes us righteous whereas the Biblical view is that God legally declares us Righteous with the righteousness of Jesus Christ legally placed in our ledger column.

This is why Romans 3 can teach,

24 being justified [g]freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Note the word “freely” there. “Freely” here means that man does not cooperate in Justification. God, by His grace, freely declares us righteous with the righteousness of Jesus Christ that comes through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.

Still the opponents of Scripture vehemently complain even today in 2026. The EO chap interviewed by Tucker Carlson, for example could say on an immensely popular podcast,

(Calvinism) is also Christologically errant in that the whole idea of what salvation is. (Calvinist’s hold) ultimately (to) one’s legal standing in terms of what’s called justification by faith alone or penal substitutionary atonement. This idea that you’re justified by God through a sort of notional acceptance of a set of ideas and then God’s attitude towards you changes. So it’s dispositional but it’s not focused on an actual ontological change in the person. (Eastern Orthodoxy is very different. God’s disposition is based not on purely a legal stance but on your actual ontological change.

Notice that the complaint here is against the Biblical view that justification is defined in terms of legal categories. This chap does not like the idea of legal categories. He does not like that Scripture does not define justification as being based on what God does inside of us (that is what he means by ontological change). He insists that God’s disposition towards former sinners is not about a legal declaration but rather is about our contributing our ontological change with the work of Christ on the cross. This is a not so subtle advocacy for a justification that is not by grace alone, not through faith alone in Christ alone. It is not by a justification that is outside of us. It is by a justification that is relational and is arrived at eventually via our cooperation and via our incremental deification in the case of Eastern Orthodoxy.

This is the testimony of Scripture from beginning to end or as Paul puts in Romans 3 this Justification is

the righteousness of God apart from the law as revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,

Notice that the Holy Spirit is saying there that this Justification of which we speak … this righteousness of God apart from the law has been revealed from Genesis forward. Everywhere it is has been taught that we are right w/ God (justified) by this legal declaration that we are right with the righteousness of Jesus Christ forensically placed to our account.

It’s stamped all over the Scripture. In Galatians we read,

“Know that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” Galatians 2:16

No change inside of us, no cooperating with God’s Spirit, No ontological change, no deification, no time spent in purgatory paying for sin, no amount of sacerdotal mumbo jumbo can find us right with God. Only God’s legal declaration that our sins have been credited to Christ on the Cross and only God’s legal declaration that Christi’s righteousness has erased our debit and so paid in full all previous penalty required by a just God. By such truth God is both Just and Justifier of those who have faith in Jesus.

Now, having said all that emphatically we do not say that justification is all of salvation, as we were accused of during Tucker’s interview. Justification is an element in our salvation but salvation also includes regeneration, sanctification, and glorification. When we talk about sanctification we Biblical Christians, we Calvinists do talk about real inward change. In regeneration we who were once dead in our trespasses and sins are made alive with Christ. In sanctification we are given the Holy Spirit as a Deposit of that which is to come. In sanctification we put off the old man and put on the new man created in Christ Jesus. In Sanctification we are transformed from glory unto glory. In Sanctification we increasingly become in the inner man what we have freely been declared to be as legally justified in Christ Jesus.

So, we Biblical Christians, we Calvinists, we Reformed, do insist that the Christian, because he is being renewed daily unto the image of the firstborn over all creation, are a people who are zealous for good works. But the good works for the Reformed are not contributory to our justification but are the necessary consequence of Justification. We bring our obedience, imperfect as it remains, and we offer it up as a sweet smelling savor before God and He is pleased with our obedience for the sake of Jesus Christ. He is pleased with our obedience because the righteousness of Jesus Christ is imputed to our obedience. We do not, by increasing in sanctification increase in earning God’s favor. Rather, it is because we have God’s favor that we increase in sanctification. And at the end of all our sanctification, we say ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.’ At the end of our ever increasing sanctification we say with the Apostle Paul, “Here is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance, ‘Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners of whom I am chief.”

So, unlike all religious humanism our obedience is not contributory to a hoped for eventual justification but is the consequence of a heart full of gratitude for a freely given justification. We obey not for what we are still trying to gain, but out of gratitude because of what we have been freely given. Herein is the difference between Christianity and religious humanism. Herein is the difference between the Reformed faith and Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Baptists, Pentecostals, Wesleyans, Nazarenes, Methodists, as well as even many in the Reformed camp such as New Perspective on Paul types, Federal Vision types, and the neo-nomians. In trying to be charitable we may observe that these other expressions are indeed Christianity of a sort but the further they drift away from the article by which the church stands or falls the more diluted their Christianity is.

Another way to contrast these two contending definitions of Justification is to try and be formulaic / Mathematical about it.

The Protestant doctrine insists that: FAITH = JUSTIFICATION + WORKS The RC/EO view is JUSTIFICATION = FAITH + WORKS. The RC/EO view is a false equivalence between justification and sanctification…. it is a fuzzing of the line wherein God does some and we do some. They can not say we are saved freely through grace.

I implore you as your pastor read one good book on Justification this year. I can recommend several. Teach the truth to your children. Point out to them the doctrine in Scripture. Understand and be able to identify the counterfeit offerings. Their name is legion. Read Iron Ink … just put the word “Justification” into the search engine.

There are many truths upon which a Christian minister must speak. One of the more important ones is Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Sovereignty … Then & Now

From the farthest reaches of time man has sought to both deny God’s totalistic sovereignty and then take up God’s prerogative of sovereignty.

In Plato’s view of the Republic everything and everyone serves the State. Everything is to be directed to the whole, to the state, not to any personal (private) interest. Citizens are not ends in themselves but merely means for the state. In particular, the higher class of the Guardians, in which the perfect state is represented, imposing this utter self-renunciation and unconditional surrender on the whole – belonging to the state they were not allowed to travel on their own business, are not to make use of silver or gold, since the State would provide all. Even the bond of family was abolished in Plato’s ideal Republic. ‘Marriages are holy’ says Plato, but the most holy are those most beneficial to the state. Because of this, in Plato’s ideal Republic, in the drive to exalt the oneness of the state, a community of women and children is the ideal. No man is to have one woman and no man is to know his children. In such a manner all belong to each other and so all belong to the state. The state, being sovereign, the state is all.

Aristotle likewise promoted the totalistic sovereign state. Like Plato, Aristotle believed that the state is prior to the people so that the state is the purpose of nature in man. Aristotle considered man in all his existence to be a mere subordinate member and agent of the state without a higher relation independent of the State because the state is the absolute end/goal.

Man, whether ancient or modern, once he casts off God’s sovereignty has and will relocate sovereignty somewhere else … most commonly the state. We find this is Scripture with the Egyptians with their religious Mahat pyramid system with Pharaoh as a God sitting at the pin point top of the pyramid. We see it in Scripture with the habits of Nebuchadnezzar with Daniel and the three Hebrew Children commanding them along w/ all other men to bow before his statue. We see it Scripture in the book of Acts where in chapter 12 Herod Agrippa receives the shouts of divine ascription. We see it in the Emperor cult of Rome. Rome sanctioned ruler worship. In the East, inscriptions such as the Priene Calendar Decree (9 B.C.) acclaim Augustus as ‘savior’ and ‘god.’ Provincial subjects were conditioned to deify political benefactors.

Sovereignty doesn’t go away if you insist that the triune God is not sovereign. It is relocated and re-implemented on a humanists basis and men who will not bow to the sovereign God of the Bible will bow to the sovereign God that is the state or they will die. Why do you think that when the Communists came to power in Russia they immediately persecuted the Church? Because they understood the church was the place where a sovereign was proclaimed who claimed a sovereignty over the state’s sovereignty. The Communists understood that they must eliminate any and all competing sovereignty and so they turned churches into latrines or animal stables in the attempt to crush competing sovereignty.

So, the continued leakage in the modern church on the subject of God’s sovereignty invites alien malignant sovereigns to mock the triune God’s sovereignty. In the French Revolution’s Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen the Revolutionaries wrote,

“The source of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation; no group, no individual may exercise authority not emanating from it.”

Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen

Again we see it with the rise of Italian Fascism during WW II

“For the Fascist all is comprised in the State and nothing spiritual or human exists — much less has any value — outside the State … the Fascist State — the unification and synthesis of every value — interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of the people.”

Mussolini — Il Duce

And we are seeing it again now. The modern church, in running away from God’s sovereignty or in understanding it only in a R2K spiritual sense is making room for the sovereignty of the state. Most of you do understand that is where we are currently arcing. The whole idea of state control is what is driving AI. The social credit system in China which is all about Statist total sovereignty has already been peeping through the keyhole in the West with the de-banking phenomenon and with the Canadian Governments tyrannical end of the trucker strike. The Church has said that God’s sovereignty is not explicit as revealed by His Law-Word and the result is the State has taken up God’s sovereignty. Sovereignty does not go away. Deny it to God and wicked fallen man will seek to arise to present claims to being a immanent god and will at the same time persecute any man or church who does not bow the knee to Caesar.

This explains why the Church especially should be so zealous to extol God’s sovereignty. The truth of the Triune God’s sovereignty protects both the reality of the Gospel as well as the liberty of the Biblical Christian against the claims of a totalistic State. We have already mentioned the latter but let us pause to ask how it is the case that God’s sovereignty protects the Gospel.

If you don’t have God’s sovereignty you do not have a efficacious atonement — either in accomplishment or in application. Christ dies for everyone, so the story of the non-sovereign God goes but god not being sovereign (despite strong claims to the contrary) can’t overcome man’s sovereignty in refusing God’s intent of Christ dying for them. God may have sovereignly designed the atonement for particular and definite ends but … darn it … man is just too sovereign to let God’s sovereignty get in the way. Seems that even if He tries real hard God can’t always get what He needs with most Protestants.

Turretin, Wolfe, & McAtee …. On the Usage of Theology to Other Systems

Stephen Wolfe posting on X quoting Francis Turretin (whose Dogmatic theology I’ve read),

“Turretin distinguishing theology from the other systems:”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

“Although [theology] does not prescribe to other systems [e.g., politics and ethics] principles and objects, yet it so far rules over them (because it establishes their limits that they neither dare to hold any object opposed to theology, nor to use their principles against it).”

Francis Turretin
Institutes of Elenctic Theology 1. 6.7

We have to note that Turretin is just in error here. The error is found in the fact that all disciplines have foundational issues they have to deal with. Political Philosophy, ethics, economics, arts, education (Turretin’s “other systems”) each and all have to deal with a-priori issues like teleology, epistemology, ontology, axiology, anthropology etc. All of these foundational issues, as taken up by the various disciplines, are only as good as they are consistent with what Christian theology prescribes to these other various disciplines as answers. Let’s take political philosophy as an example. Political philosophy must have a notion of the common good that it is going to serve. What standard for the “common good” will Political philosophy use for its “common good,” except the standard prescribed to it by what God has revealed in Scripture? Certainly, no one is going to argue that “right reason and natural law,” will prescribe a standard for “the common good” in Political philosophy since Political philosophy does not have it within itself, absent revealed theology, the ability to provide a “common good.” If Political philosophy will not use revealed theology to prescribe to it the common good, then Political philosophy will, by necessity be man-centered to in finding some other prescription for the “common good.” All disciplines that are not theology, need theology to prescribe for it, its “principles and objects.” This is why our fathers referred to theology as “The Queen of the Sciences.”

So, theology, contra Turretin, does indeed prescribe to the other disciplines their principles. It is only in Christian theology as drawn from the Word of God where we can find the answers to the questions that the other disciplines must first answer before they can be about their business. Epistemology, axiology, teleology, ontology, anthropology are all principles that the other disciplines must deal with and they can only arrive at a correct position on these issues by looking to theology. If they are incorrect on these issues then the whole discipline will suck.

Take the University as an example here. The original logic behind the University was the fact that there could be sundry disciplines taught thus providing the diversity with the proviso that there would be a overarching unity to those diverse disciplines as provided by the Queen of the Sciences … theology. Originally, it was Christian theology that was to provide the Uni in University. Christian theology was to be the integration point for all truth, regardless of the various disciplines. In such a way the idea of “The One and the Many” was satisfied. Dr. Wolfe is all about the many, but he lacks an Objective One in order to give a “Uni” to his “Versity.”

However, with the passage of time theology has been cast aside and the concept of University has been cast aside for our modern Multi-versities. There is not Uni that is serving as an integration point to all other disciplines.

Two Kingdom projects, whether of the R2K variety or the W2K (Wolfe 2K) variety reinforces this abandonment of the Uni in University in favor of the Multi-versity. With the 2K’s desire to cordon theologically informed truth from the various disciplines such as politics, economics, history, arts, education, etc. what occurs is some other theology entering a vaccuum in order to be the theology that provides the Uni in the University. Most often this Uni is some form of Humanism. However, given the various competing forms of Humanism, Multi-versity is what results.

2K schools of thought will counter by marching out Natural law so as to be the Uni in the University. However, the problem here is that Natural Law has as many readings as Carter’s has liver pills. There is no stability in appealing to Natural Law as the theological point of integration when Natural Law has proven to be a moving target over the centuries depending upon which non Christian philosophical school is in the ascendency. Now, the response here is something like, “Well, we are talking about ‘Christian Natural Law,’ but that doesn’t solve the equation because the same subjectivity arises. Whose Christian Natural Law? Unless Christian Natural Law is based upon Scripture we arrive at Natural Laws that are completely subjective. If Christian Natural Law is based on Scripture then why do we need Natural Law?

2K thinking guarantees the Multi-Versity phenomenon both in the University and in the broader culture. When 2K resists the fact that theology must be the integration point for all truth 2K guarantees a fractured multi-verse where each man interprets what is right in his own eyes