But I can’t discern much difference between what my Evangelicals say and what you guys do when it comes to some of these things. Of course, they also seem to mistake a Calvinist for a hyper-Calvinist; they talk a lot about grace but mean something very different from what (you and) I would, then simply say I make too much of grace.

In a similar way, I sometimes I get the sense that by 2K some mean “a form of Kuyperianism co-existing with a form of Klineanism.” (Two K’s, get it?)

So, if you want to say I have reacted too far, it concerns me about as much as my Arminian Revivalists telling me I make too much of grace and Covies saying I champion grace over a damnable ethics, or Hyper-Calvinists saying I make too much of human responsibility. Law and grace simply need to be viewed correctly is all.

Besides, all of us here at the Outhouse (excepting Rick, and even including Echo) are Johnny-come-latelies to Reformdom, having been rescued from anticonfessional evangelicalism within, what, the last 10 years? So when it comes to figuring out what exactly is W2K (over and above just plain 2K), I’m going to have to go with an actual WSCAL student, rather than just a Hortophile.

My point with “Johhny-come-lately” is that all of us are reactionaries — which is good, since we have all corrected our doctrine from a position of error. But Z, you have reacted the furthest, so out of all of us, your reaction is most likely to be overreaction.

I think you might have shot a little past W2K, landing at, say, maybe Z2K? Don’t worry, what’s a couple of letters between friends?

If I am so “radical,” why is it that you and Rube take quite an exception to DVD’s other point in that piece about how unbelieving families are complete?

Seems like you guys are making abortion policy the whet stone here. Talk about being radical. And talk about Constantinianism not being shaken off yet.

This issue will not come to an end, and if it is to end, I am of a mind that good “natural law” arguments will need to be made “out there,” in a way such that even people not now prone to accepting them, will find them reasonable and even winsome.

The LAST thing I would do, Zrim, is to try to beat someone over the head with a Bible, (much less instigate to have the OT law written into civil law).

This is just a short list of responsibilities that Christians may choose to voluntarily assume. A free society makes it necessary for individuals to participate in assuring the public good. Yes, we must put our families, and the family of God, first. But we must also get the big picture when it comes to our participation in the left-hand kingdom.

Not all amillennialists think that it doesn’t matter if, for example, Obama (pro-abortion) is elected.

Lee Irons explained why he is voting for Obama: “the issue of abortion is irrelevant in deciding who to vote for in 2008.”

http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?p=79

However, not all amills can bring themselves to vote for such a candidate, in fact, I’d say Irons is pretty unique here, Zrim being the only exception I know of. Most of us would be appalled at what Irons said. So I think your radical 2K bug assessment is correct in that regard. In fact, the term “central dogma” comes to mind. But I think you are wrong to put that label on all of those who are amill as you did in the article you linked to.

Dr. Vandrunen, of WSCAL, a more mainstream amillennialist (and W2K), says: “What if I am having a friendly conversation with my neighbor across the fence and she tells me that she is thinking about having an abortion, or that she wants to support a bill before the state legislature that would make abortions easier to secure? And what if (and is the case for most of us) my neighbor is not a Christian and does not accept Scripture as a moral authority? Do I tell her that if she does not submit to the Scriptures then she has no right to participate in the political process? That would be neither factually true nor biblically sound. Do I tell her that if she does not believe in Scripture then she might as well go and have an abortion because there is no other moral reason for her not to do so? I would first of all wish my neighbor to put faith in Christ and believe the Scriptures. But even if she does not, I still would rather she be pro-life in her voting and personal behavior, not because in doing so she understands the “inner essence of things” or “all truth, in every area and in every respect, especially in its essential interrelatedness” (to borrow Kloosterman’s phrases), but for the sake of a relative social peace and justice.”

That comes from this article here:

http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=78

So while I think your critique of *some* in the W2K-amill camp is apt, it certainly does not apply to all, or even most of us.

E

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/casino-conundrum-and-creational-ethics/

Even these Seniors need neighbors.

http://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&cat=26

I am a person who appreciates W2K theology for what it is, and I look for ways to bring theology to real life; the above named individual thinks it is a plague.

For your readers, I am the individual who made the “unneighborly” comment. It was in response to a Dr. Albert Mohler comment to the effect that “love of neighbor compels us to work to affect the culture.” And I also commented that “love of my own children” makes such a statement even more believable.

Of course “our heavenly citizenship [is the better part of] our earthly lives.” By definition that is true. However, W2K holds that God preserves and upholds the “common” kingdom in this world, too, It makes sense to me that he might use “the salt of the earth” as one of the means to do this.

The Samaritan, of course, had no idea when he might be needed. And the point of the “neighbor” story is that he stopped to help that fellow on the road, even when it was inconvenient for him.