Two Kingdoms Is Protestant

With all due respect to my fellow Outhouser who approvingly linked us to Carl Trueman’s response to Jason Stellman’s developed views, there is a better way to assess the correlation between those views and two kingdom theology. The latter is actually a way to signal an older, more robust Protestantism. To the contrary of some, it is not a gateway by which to cross the Tiber. We who hold to the two kingdom doctrine (and the spirituality of the church) would do well to actually champion its Protestant distinctives instead of throw it under the bus.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in DG Hart, Links, Old Life, Spirituality of the Church, Two-kingdoms. Bookmark the permalink.

116 Responses to Two Kingdoms Is Protestant

  1. RubeRad says:

    With all due respect to Trueman, he never blamed 2K (or ecclesiology) as a gateway, but as a potential distraction

  2. Zrim says:

    But when the formal and material principles of the Reformation were the explicit cause, what is gained by attributing even as a potential implicit distraction something that wasn’t?

  3. P.L.M. says:

    “If they deny 2k, they ride on a rocky road.”

    Hart needs to argue that *only* your particular nuanced brand of 2K affirms, defends, and upholds sola scriptura and sola fide. At a minimum, your argument needs a premise like that.

    And really, a denial of 2K is a sufficient condition for riding a rocky road? So if a denial obtains, this this *guarantees* one rides the rocky road? You guys really want to defend that? (If so, don\’t say ”Yea,” but give an *argument* for the *guaranteel* of the obtaining of the outcome.)

    Moreover, here’s another implication of Hart’s conditional: “If someone does not ride on a rocky road, then they do not deny 2K.” So not denying (your particular, nuanced brand of) 2K is *necessary* to not ride the rocky road? Christians *must* not deny Hart’s brand of 2K?

    Talk about conscience binding! Didn’t your post say something about affronts to liberty of conscience being affronts to the Lordship of Christ? “The Bible forbids a man to substitute any human authority for the Word of God. . . .” Does the Bible have a verse that says, “You *must* not deny neo-2K, otherwise you ride the rocky road.” Does the Confession say that? Can you *derive* by “good and necessary inference” the necessity of affirming your own particular, nuanced brand of 2K?

    Another problem is this: it’s not that 2k can affirm sola fide and sola scriptura (which is *accidental* to 2K), it’s all the *other* things many if not most of you guys say. You guys make all these *other* claims for 2K and pretend that all these other, more radical views are *entailed* by 2K. So if one denies *those* things, one has to deny 2K itself, for one can\’t hold to 2K and deny an *entailment* of 2K.

    Here\’s the interesting pattern I see from 2Kers. Whenever 2K is attacked, you guys define 2K so broadly as to encompass all your critics, or claim for it views that are very widespread (Arminians hold to sola scriptura and sola fide, FWIW). I recall Horton making this move when he wrote, ”If you affirm a distinction between saving and common grace, you’re already a ’two kingdoms’ advocate.” Then, they make all kinds of radical, illogical, and absurd claims. People critique them or leave them. At damage control time 2Kers stand around with mouths gaping and arms akimbo and say, ”How could anyone have a problem with 2K? We just affirm sola scriptura, sola fide, and we make a distinction between saving and common grace.”

  4. dghart says:

    Paul Larry Manata, double posting?

    What exactly are one or two of the “radical” statements 2kers make? There you go again with your fine-tuned reason and Christian charity.

  5. justsinner99 says:

    It seems like there are two different ways to use the term “2K.” One is rather broad, and the other one is much more narrow.

    Most (if not all) Reformed Christian hold to some kind of 2K doctrine, don’t they? But that does make it a bit confusing when one of the narrow 2K proponents seems to jump back and forth between the two uses of the term (e.g. the quote by Dr. Horton that Paul cites above).

    As someone who is relatively new to the whole 2K debate/discussion (online brawl?), I would find it much more helpful if those using the term would use a different term (not a pejorative, but one that both sides could agree upon) when speaking of the more narrow version than they do in speaking of the more broad one.

  6. Jed Paschall says:

    Rube,

    I would be more inclined to agree with you, but his remark that certain 2kers actually disdain Christian discipleship and care for the needy did a good deal of damage to some otherwise good points. If he wasn’t intending to blame 2k, or a percieved overemphasis thereof as a gateway, at least in Stellman’s case, then what was the point of the article. As I read Trueman, he seemed to assert that Stellman’s ministerial focus wasn’t on the gospel (rather amillenialism), and that his imbalanced 2k (esp. ecclesiology) lead him to Rome. However, Stellman, by his own admission cited his departures as being rooted in a change of heart over the material principles of the Reformation.

    So, maybe we need to be more mindful of holding 2k in balance, fair enough, balance is a struggle for all Christians to achieve. But, I think Trueman’s proposed insights really have missed the core of why Jason left in the first place, and unfortunately, where he usually strikes a reasonable balance in the Reformed community, this particular post has become a rallying cry for certain 2k detractors. When a man looses his confidence in Scripture and the gospel, I think it is fair to assume that there are deeper things going on than non-core (2k) doctrinal imbalances.

  7. Jed Paschall says:

    As someone who is relatively new to the whole 2K debate/discussion (online brawl?)…

    Andy,

    Just be thankful that this conversation isn’t happening in a bar room!, 2k advocates simply refer to themselves as 2k, basically following Van Drunen’s masterful treatment on the subject. In these debates, most self-identified 2kers, if not all are referring to the 2k theology being taught by some professors over at WSCAL. The pejoratives have made the conversation hard to follow, but rest assured, 2kers themselves aren’t identifying themselves as neo-2k, R(radical)2k, et. al., I don’t think there is any way to keep others from using their own terminology, whether as a pejorative or for more benign reasons.

  8. P.L.M. says:

    You want one? I have dozens. Let’s start here:

    First, the scenario:

    There is an island nation. There are 21 people on the island, all citizens of this island nation. 11 are Christian, 10 are non-Christian. The government (1 guy) wakes up one day and says, “You know, I don’t think people with brown hair are real persons, so we can kill them if we want to by chopping their body into little pieces or burning them alive with chemicals.” But this guy follows the rules of the land. To allow people to kill a living thing, they must vote. It so happens that one of the islanders, John, has brown hair. He’s a Christian too. So they vote on whether they can kill John, a human person, by one of the above ways. So they vote. John, of course, votes nay. All non-Chrisians vote yes. All Christian votes are in except one, Darryl’s. 10 Christians voted nay. Darryl is the deciding vote. He votes, yes. The islanders who want to kill John shove him in a suction device and chop him to pieces.

    Got the scenario? Zrim said it would not be politically untoward for Darryl to vote that way. That the other Christians shouldn’t try to persuade Darryl to vote that way. And definitely, no Christian, not even Darryl’s session, can say “boo” to Darryl. They cannot call on him to repent.

    How’s that for “radical?” More ironic is that Zrim is apparently concerned that we not talk in the public sphere in ways he doesn’t approve, but we ma vote to allow murder. Strange priorities, I’d say.

    Anyway, that’s number one, I can go for sometime. I have some Darryl zingers too.

  9. P.L.M. says:

    Jed, can I assume you’d say that anyone who claimed that the above scenario and was what “2K” would have us believe is espousing a “radical” 2K?

  10. justsinner99 says:

    Sometimes I think this debate needs a “beer summit.” Could mellow the tone a bit.

    What do you all say? (No, I’m not buying.) 🙂

  11. dghart says:

    Paul Lawrence, as is usually the case, I ask for an example of a 2k statement and you reply with your own thoughts, interpretations, or scenarios.

    I get it. You don’t like 2k and you believe its proponents have inconsistencies. But if you’re going to assert that 2k makes all sorts of radical claims, you may actually have to go to the source (not to the replies in a blog).

  12. Jed Paschall says:

    Sorry Paul, I am having a tough time understanding what you are actually asking, please clarify a bit. But, what most accuse as R(radical)2k is not radical in my estimation, since 2kers (unless you can provide a counter-example) to the man are drawing off of DVD’s work primarily. However, I’ll admit, some in the 2k camp apply 2k in radical ways, but that doesn’t make the system radical, just the individual.

  13. P.L.M. says:

    I didn’t reply with m own thoughts. That’s the example. Gotta response, or just dodging again? And no, not Lawrence, D. Gary.

  14. dghart says:

    Paul Lawrence, island nation is your idea, not mine.

  15. dghart says:

    Jed, what I think you need to do is imagine yourself on an island and then you need to pick three of Paul’s posts that you’d most like to have while you’re stranded.

  16. Zrim says:

    So what’s rrrrrradical is affirming political liberty and the whacky notion that political disagreement should be solved politically and not spiritually. Paul is managing to portray that in the worst possible light as pay back for not showing sufficient respect to philosophy. Hide the women and children, 2k is out to eat your first born.

  17. P.L.M. says:

    Told you, Darryl. So is that rrrrrradical or not? Zrim can’t deny the story or he has to admit that spiritual authority can step into a political disagreement. Once he admits that, he loses his unqualified philistinean cudgel by which he carelessly swings away at his opponents.

    Zrim, it’s not about getting all emotional and pretending I said you’re out to get people’s children. It was merely an application of your claim. See, when you make certain claims, like “cannot”, then I get to find a possible case in which your “cannot” doesn’t hold. That’s simply standard reasoning. To say that 2+2≠5 *means* there is no case or interpretation where 2+2 = 5. If someone could find such a case, then it would be false to say 2+2≠5. Back me up, Rube.

  18. P.L.M. says:

    Lol, Darryl. That was some funny shizzle my nizzle! Gotta give you props on that one.

  19. P.L.M. says:

    The idea is mine. The *response* was Zrim’s. The *response* is what is rrrrrradical. Quit playing dumb; or is it that you are dumb?

  20. Jed Paschall says:

    Paul,

    I understand where the scenario comes from, but I find that it is somewhat dubious – if a 2ker claims to uphold NL, then policy advocating murder must be resisted, or at minimum not supported. If this ties back into some of the past discussions on abortion, we’re in agreement, direct support for abortion should be something that the church deals with as a violation of the general equity of the 6th commandment. I realize that some 2kers, such as Zrim (who understands well that he and I disagree rather sharply on this matter), hold different views on the matter of how a church deals with it’s own members and the issue of abortion, but they are in the minority. I think Zrim absolutizes Rom. 13, he thinks that disobedience to the state (except in matters regarding worship) is disobedience to God, we disagree but understand each others positions, aren’t likely to change our opinions, so it’s time to move on.

    But, I think that most of these recent discussions (i.e. after Stellman’s departure) have less to do with 2k proper, which you have some agreement with, and more to do with your ongoing personal disputes with DGH, Zrim, etc. Frankly, I just don’t have much of an interest in inserting myself much more in this personal dispute, to me, it’s overplayed and getting really old. It’s not really advancing the 2k discussion, rather re-hashing and recycling the same old arguments we’ve all been going around in circles over for years. So, no offense intended, but I’d rather ride the pine than jump into that discussion, I just don’t see much value in it for anyone involved.

  21. P.L.M. says:

    Jed, that’s unresponsive. I am not talking about abortion. I am asking this question: Is the answer to the scenario in that case radical or not? (And this need not have anything to do with NL. As our confession makes clear, this falls under the heading of the 6th commandment. So the 2Ker only need to be a Confessionalist :-)). So, it’s a simple question: in that scenario I presented, is the response I offered considered by you to be radical? If someone said that 2K *entailed* that answer, would 2K be radical or not. I find this a simple question.

  22. P.L.M. says:

    Oh, and I’m fine with you sitting out. I only asked you what I did because you said what you said about ‘R2K’ to Andy. I am proving it’s not pejorative or improper, but there are some presentations of 2K that deserve the term radical. So that’s why I asked.

  23. P.L.M. says:

    Well, let’s ask the fence-siiter. Andy, is the answer to the scenario I proposed above ‘radical.’ If 2K demanded that you believe that in order to get your secret 2K decoder ring and be a member of the club, would you believe it, or would you think it were radical?

  24. P.L.M. says:

    “we disagree but understand each others positions, aren’t likely to change our opinions, so it’s time to move on.”

    Heeeeey, that’s no fair. Zrim didn’t kick you out of the club? How come when I say I disagree he says I “deny the gospel” and that I am a latent theonomist and that I am privileging philosophy and reason over the Bible? Why can’t he just let me disagree? If he would just let me be, let me pursue my interests, we’d be fine. But both he and Hart suggest that I don’t love Jesus as much as them, and am not as Reformed as them, and am not as pious as them, because I think the Bible has things to say to philosophical issues and I like to peruse that direction. Or just because I defend someone’s right to stand in front of an abortion clinic and present a case to the mothers, the call names, tell me I am extreme and emotional and don’t act with comportment but act in ways unbecoming a Reformed debutant.

  25. Zrim says:

    But, Paul, you had a blog once (now deleted, what’s up with that?) in which you cried out to “keep this man [me] away from my kids!” But I’m still good with pulling levers against my political opponents instead of withholding elements. Andy, before you answer you’ll have to decide if you think politics is really so important that it rises to personal liability.

  26. Jed Paschall says:

    Paul,

    If you insert “abort babies” where “chop up brown-haired people to bits” occurs in your scenario, it basically works. To indulge you just a teeny, weenie bit, one can have a “radical” view on a particular view without his whole system of thought being radical. Besides, we grew up in the same area, I feel the need to stick up for radical because in my neck of the woods, it was a compliment – where everything from waves to carne asada burritos can be radical in their own right. But, with respect to the real discussion (as opposed to a scenario – which only has illustrative power), I think Z is just wrong on the issue, but I don’t think he is radical (as if anything in Michigan can be).

  27. Zrim says:

    Paul, try and learn from our friend Jed. This is how one opposes another. For him, instead of rrrrrradical, I’m simply wrong in the way I apply 2k principles to the third rail set of abortion-politics or to say that having certain political views isn’t the same as behaving personally. Assuming you can do this, do you have any other scary toys in your basket designed to marginalize, er, I mean back up this term rrrrrrrradical?

  28. P.L.M. says:

    Since abortion was too controversial, I presented a story that avoided those problems. But it stands on its own.

    What do you think of this: If a position entails that which is radical, then the position is radical. Zrim tells us his position entails the things he digs his heels in about.

    Okay, so you seriously think that ***in the scenario I gave*** that answer isn’t radical for a Christian to make? Okay, fine. The disagreement here is so basic that I guess there’s not anything more basic to which to appeal to try to persuade. But please do note that it expressly contradicts the westminster catechisms, and one would think that for a “confessionalist” to deny his catechism just to win a debate rather than qualify his broad statement, that would be radical.

  29. P.L.M. says:

    Zrim (I just pwned you in the other thread. You ma debate nicely with Jed. But you don’t with me. So knock off the snide comments). If that’s how one opposes on another, then why do you tell me I “deny the gospel,” or why do you tell me that I must be “off my meds.” If one can say *that*, why can’t one call another “radical?” I forgot, it’s because if *Zrim* does it, it’s okay, but not me.

    Anyway, Jed admits that some things can be radical. If you had said that 2K entails that you beat your children, I’m sure he would say that *that* is radical. So, he just happens to not think the above clearly radical scenario is really radical, but that doesn’t mean the only way he opposes you is to say you’re wrong.

    So learn from our dear friend, reason: We all admit there exists radical positions. I say your position on the island story is radical. That’s my view, and I suspect many others. On your view, you should just politely disagree. But don’t act so incredulous as to how anyone could possibly take your brand of 2K to be radical. For my example is a pretty good case, even if Jed disagrees. I’m sue Jed would agree that he could *see how* someone could take your view as radical. So it’s not like I don’t have a case for your radicalness. You disagree. Fine. We put forth our respective cases and let people decide for themselves.

  30. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    But, Zrim, R2K’er R. Scott Clark had a blog once and now he’s deleted it. What’s up with that?

  31. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    “But don’t act so incredulous as to how anyone could possibly take your brand of 2K to be radical.”

    Zrim, Paul is right.

    In fact, there are a good number of people who object to the move of R2Kers to linguistically reposition themselves as 2Kers.

  32. Jed Paschall says:

    Paul,

    You are giving me too much credit here, I only paroosed the scenario, it seemed to me to be a foil for our prior abortion discussions, but by making a rather far-fetched scenario (I realize for rhetorical effect – so I am not casting stones at you for the scenario) which would obviously lead one to believe that those who submitted to the policy were radical. I simply would rather return to the discussion that I believed precluded the scenario (correct me if I have misread you here), in order to return the discussion to something more tangible, grounded in real-life debates. Which is why I think that my point stands – one can misapply a theological concept and thus come to an erroneous conclusion without being radical, and without the theological concept being radical.

    I’d simply argue that there are areas where I might disagree with other 2kers such as Zrim or DGH, but there is simply too much that we hold in common with respect to 2k theology for me to be willing to call them radical – it just demonstrates diversity in a particular field of thought. My guess is you see them as radical over their stances on certain political issues, and certain matters of philosophy and worldview, but even these are accidental to 2k thought in general, and frankly I think that principled disagreement over these matters do move the 2k discussion forward, but the personal nature of the argument (without defending anyone) does not, at least as I see it.

  33. justsinner99 says:

    OK, I am allowing for the possibility that somehow I may have missed something about your hypothetical island death-vote scenario.

    But if I understand it correctly, you are saying that according to 2K (or R2K or whatever we want to agree to call the WSCA version), Daryl could supposedly vote in favor of killing brown-haired people and his no one in the church (elder, Pastor, brother in the Lord, whomever) could rebuke him for it or call him to repentance. And would be because R2K would make a distinction between one’s actions in the redemptive Kingdom (the church) and one’s actions merely as a citizen of the earthly kingdom (society/nation). Is that correct?

    But as a confessional believer (in both Daryl’s case & mine – Presbyterians, holding to the Westminster Standards), he must account for the Shorter Catechism’s view of the 6th Commandment. It states, “What is required in the sixth commandment? A. The sixth commandment requires all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life, and the life of others” (Q.68). The answer to the very very next question (Q.69) states that the 6th commandment “forbids the taking away of . . .the life of our neighbor unjustly, or whatsoever tends thereunto.”

    There is no possible distinction that I can see between the 2 Kingdoms here in the hypothetical scenario that you propose. The commandment for me (the voting Christian) is not a “church” thing per se at all. But I am expressly forbidden to do anything (including voting!) that can tend toward the unjust taking away of the life of another person (even a person with brown hair!). And, positively-speaking (according to Q.68), I would actually be required to vote a certain way (according to your scenario) in order to save my neighbor’s life.

    If one’s view (2K or whatever) allowed for you to vote that others be killed unjustly, such a system would not only be “radical” – it would be decidely unconfessional to boot!

    Am I missing something?

    Steve and/or Daryl – what say you about the hypothetical scenario? Valid? Invalid?

  34. justsinner99 says:

    I miss the Heidelblog.

    He does post stuff on the WSCA blog, though.

  35. justsinner99 says:

    I did not think that Dr. Trueman blamed 2K either.

    I do see how his comments have ruffled some 2K feathers, though (especially 2K bloggers). Seems that some definitely see themselves in his remarks.

  36. P.L.M. says:

    Andy, I don’t think 2K entails this view, it’s an entailment from what *Zrim* says is 2K. I made the confessional point too. Zrim doesn’t care. Zrim admits that given what he’s said, Christians and even Darryl’s pastor can’t say “Boo!” to Darryl. They cannot tell him he acted wrongly. They cannot demand he repent. And, before the vote, they cannot instruct Darryl *from the pulpit or office or in any connection with the church*, they can as *private* citizens, of course. Will Darryl pipe-up? Who knows. He dodges. A lot.

  37. P.L.M. says:

    Zrim, you’re problem is that you’re too extreme. You fail and refuse to make common sense qualifications. I agree that there are many, perhaps even most, political issues that the church should not speak on as church qua church. But to say there *cannot possibly be a case* is your downfall, and it’s what proves you to be extreme and to have a movement mentality. You feel you can’t give a square inch without giving up the entire territory.

  38. P.L.M. says:

    What, are you the blog police now? It’s not enough that you have to run around making sure people say mother may I and mind their p’s and q’s, you need to enforce blog deletion rules too?

  39. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    “He [Darryl G. Hart] dodges. A lot.”

    Paul and Darryl. how about a formal on-line debate between the two of you about some core aspect of R2K? If Darryl G. Hart dodges (again) during the debate, this will only confirm Paul’s point.

    What say thee, Paul and Darryl, to a formal on-line R2K debate between the two of you?

  40. P.L.M. says:

    Jed, here’s what precluded the scenario: Zrim said that there could not be a case where the church or an ordained officer told a church member how to vote or in any way disciplined them for a political vote.

    I actually couldn’t believe he was serious, so I said, “Yeah, for most cases. But you don’t believe that for any case.” He said he did. Still, I could not believe he really believed such a strong claim, so I thought the thought experiment would help. It didn’t. He has never once backed off his position—probably because he would be forced to withdraw several of his criticisms and complaints against non-2Kers. Zrim knows that once you attenuate it, he loses his right to *flat-out* dismiss theonomists etc., on more mundane matters and has to actually *argue* that they are wrong on the specifics of the case and not via a blanket principle that covers all cases whatever.

  41. P.L.M. says:

    “it just demonstrates diversity in a particular field of thought.”

    Yes, but when I defended 2K they would not call my views on apologetics and philosophy “diversity” within 2K thought. Hart *still* calls me a theonomist, even though I have not only publicly defended 2K but have told him I’m not. Zrim *still* juxtaposes me with true, real, and proper 2K. My views are not allowed within the camp. So, you’re sensible, they’re not.

  42. justsinner99 says:

    In most cases I would wholeheartedly agree that we (pastors) should not be preaching politics or focusing on the earthly kingdom. We are to preach Christ crucified.

    But there must be cases in which (in dealing with the imperatives/commands in Scripture) one has to speak toward things political/civil. I just don’t see how it can be justly avoided.

    Abortion is the first subject that comes to mind. Homosexual behavior is another. These are, first and foremost *moral* issues that have now bled over into politics. Marriage itself is now in that category as well.

    It is not my job as a pastor to tell God’s people to vote for Mitt Romney (or against Obama). But there must be times when, in order to proclaim the whole counsel of God, I will have to touch on areas where the moral law of God has bled over into politics.

    I don’t think that is a “transformationalist” view. My goal is not to bring about a new Geneva, nor am I confusing this age with the age to come.

  43. justsinner99 says:

    Is that a triple dog dare? 😀

  44. justsinner99 says:

    I think that there should be a special cage match hoagies & stogies on this topic. Everyone chip in $20 to fly Daryl & Paul back out to SoCal! (Zrim too.)

    . . . or just make it a beer summit. Either way, count me in (as a spectator)!

  45. P.L.M. says:

    Lucky you’re new and nice. So Zrim will be nice. If I had said what you said, Zrim would tell me I deny the gospel, as he has so many other times. But that’s because Zrim can’t beat me in an argument. So Zrim played the only hand he thought he had—I just took that from him in the Religious Bigotry thread.

  46. Jed Paschall says:

    Paul,
    I remember the discussion, I was part of it – basically, on this issue you and I are in agreement. The question is whether or not this makes Zrim’s 2k views are extreme as a whole. To me disagreement, even fairly deep disagreement, on one particular area with someone doesn’t mean that as a whole I think that their system of thought is radical. As much as I hate abortion, I don’t think it is the be-all/end-all issue in the church, or in politics for that matter, so I can concede that different Christians might approach this differently, even if I question the fundamental basis for their stance on the matter.

  47. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    “Is that a triple dog dare?”

    I thought it was just a double-dog dare actually. I’ve never seen a formal on-line debate about R2K and I think it would be helpful to see it.

    Darryl G. Hart is one of the foremost vocal proponents of R2K and Paul is a highly formidable logician and philosopher. It would be a good match.

    If Darryl needs assistants, he could have Professors Michael Horton, David Van Drunen, and R. Scott Clark to serve as his seconds.

    Paul could probably handle them all on his own, but if Paul wanted to get Steve Hays, James Anderson, and TurretinFan to serve as his seconds, that would be fair.

    I don’t think we need a moderator referee, but if one was suggested, I wouldn’t mind co-moderating along with RubeRad.

  48. sean says:

    You know it’s interesting when you either read Kline or later DVD. If what DVD is articulating is ‘radical 2k’ then you have to lump Kuyper into that group because he actually codified the idea of common grace as a seperate arena or ‘terrain’ of engagement. When you read Kline, he argues in agreement with Kuyper over against Dooyewerd’s philosophical monism. So Andy, if your looking for points of demarcation, It’s Dooyewerd departing from Kuyper because of a previous commitment to a particular philosophical bias against any sort of dialectic or dualism and Kline and others recovering Kuyper, sans his political rhetoric, and without the ‘thomistic’ overtones of ‘leavening’ the common grace terrain to raise it to it’s potentiality. Van Til then imbibes the common grace terrain but with an emphasis on pushing the antithetical such that by the time your done, common grace is wafer thin (think ‘Meaning of Life’) and Kline comes along enjoins with Van Til’s idea of relative normativity(backdrop) but rather than positing the antithesis such that common grace becomes wafer thin(pushing the antithetical back to the epistemological), common grace in Kline, is recast as a ‘preserving’ grace that essentially maintains that distinction or character, until the 2nd advent (2 peter). Phew!

  49. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    JustSinner99: “But there must be times when, in order to proclaim the whole counsel of God, I will have to touch on areas where the moral law of God has bled over into politics.”

    JustSinner99, Zrim, Jed Paschall, and Darryl G. Hart,

    What do you think of this church post by North Carolina Pastor J.D. Greear:

    Summit Church and the Marriage Amendment

    Excerpts (but do read it all): “Again, marriage was not invented by government; it was merely recognized by the government. God is the designer, and God established it as the union of a man and woman in an exclusive, life-long covenant.

    So, I encourage you go out and vote in support of this amendment this Tuesday. I want you to do so as an act of service and love for our community.”

    Now my understanding of Zrim’s and DG Hart’s R2K is that R2K condemns or disapproves of such statements by a minister of God to his congregation about such matters. I would like to be happily surprised to see Zrim and DG Hart expressly say that they approve of Pastor Greear’s statements as a Pastor to his church about voting “Yes” on the Marriage Amendment, and that it comports well with R2K doctrine.

    I, on the other hand, support Pastor Greear’s statement to the congregation.

  50. Jed Paschall says:

    My views are not allowed within the camp.

    I don’t think this is the case. I think that all things considered you have had some very beneficial analyses of 2k, both positive and negative. Like I said earlier, I think the discussions between you and certain 2kers are colored more by personal differences than ideological ones, even though there are real ideological differences. I am not here to defend or accuse anyone, sometimes otherwise decent people who care for the church and for the truth simply have a tough time seeing eye to eye, or getting along for that matter.

    As to the 2k camp, I think there is a needed place for those with the philosophical chops to tackle the complexities of ethics and NL and more, the posts and work you put into this were helpful at least for me. I realize that philosophy buffs sometimes get a hard rap in certain 2k circles, but I think that has been tempered a bit by guys such as Matt Tuininga who have helped balance out the discussion. But, I think it’s a two-way street, where some worldview hard-liners and philosophy types haven’t exactly played nice either. All in all, I think that the dilemmas between 2k and philosophical theology has been a false one, one that hopefully will subside with time.

  51. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    “I would like to be happily surprised to see Zrim and DG Hart expressly say that they approve of Pastor Greear’s statements as a Pastor to his church about voting “Yes” on the Marriage Amendment, and that it comports well with R2K doctrine.”

    Yes, it would be a nice surprise indeed. Then Pastor Greear would not be labeled a “transformationalist” or a “theonomist” for the simple act of asking his congregation to vote for a marriage amendment defining marriage as one-man and one-woman.

  52. justsinner99 says:

    TUAD, did you just quote yourself? 🙂

    FWIW, I have no problem with the pastor’s statement that you quoted. I hope it wasn’t the main point of his sermon, but I have no problem with it per se. Certainly isn’t “theonomist” (unless by that one just means that we are supposed to obey God’s law).

    – Andy

  53. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    JustSinner99, Andy: “FWIW, I have no problem with the pastor’s statement that you quoted. I hope it wasn’t the main point of his sermon, but I have no problem with it per se. Certainly isn’t “theonomist”

    Very good, very good Pastor Andy. Glad to see you have no problem with it.

    How about Zrim, Jed Paschall, and Darryl G. Hart? Does R2K doctrine have a problem with Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement? Or is his statement perfectly in accord with R2K doctrine?

  54. Jed Paschall says:

    TUAD,

    I have already given you explanations ad nauseam on the green baggins site on my stance on gay marriage. If you have any questions, please refer to those conversations, but I have no desire whatsoever to go down that rabbit trail again.

  55. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    Jed,

    Are you saying that R2K doctrine has no problem with Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement to his congregation to vote in favor of the North Carolina Marriage Amendment to keep marriage defined as one-man, one-woman?

    A short answer would be helpful.

  56. justsinner99 says:

    TUAD – we do agree on some things!

  57. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    Jed: “TUAD, I have already given you explanations ad nauseam on the green baggins site on my stance on gay marriage.”

    I’m sorry Jed if you thought I was asking for your views on gay marriage. I’m not. What I’m asking is this:

    Does R2K doctrine have no problem with Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement to his congregation asking them to vote “Yes” in favor of the North Carolina Marriage Amendment to keep marriage defined as one-man, one-woman?

    Or does Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement violate R2K doctrine?

    A short answer would be helpful.

  58. Zrim says:

    In most cases I would wholeheartedly agree that we (pastors) should not be preaching politics or focusing on the earthly kingdom. We are to preach Christ crucified.

    But there must be cases in which (in dealing with the imperatives/commands in Scripture) one has to speak toward things political/civil. I just don’t see how it can be justly avoided.
    Abortion is the first subject that comes to mind. Homosexual behavior is another. These are, first and foremost *moral* issues that have now bled over into politics. Marriage itself is now in that category as well.

    It is not my job as a pastor to tell God’s people to vote for Mitt Romney (or against Obama). But there must be times when, in order to proclaim the whole counsel of God, I will have to touch on areas where the moral law of God has bled over into politics.

    Andy, instead of resigning ourselves to a sort of inevitability, my own concern is to see more caution exercised when anything has become politicized. Some seem to read this point as some sort of thinly veiled gag order. But the point of the spirituality of the church is to be zealous for just that, spirituality. Which means when things become political it seems to make sense to raise a yellow flag instead of wave the checkered, and that’s because the political is categorically opposed to the spiritual.

    This doesn’t mean at all the morality of certain behaviors is to be avoided. It simply means that when they have become politicized we do well to stop and ask how the political nature might hinder the spiritual thrust. If we really want to be conservative Calvinists in the best sense of that phrase then we should demonstrate more caution and resistance to letting politics enter the whole spiritual council of God than, marking with bright lines the difference between morality and politics instead of being content with fuzzy edges. That contentedness really seems to make things easier for the age of moralized politics and politicized faith, and if we really want to be counter-cultural it seems to me we should be pushing back on that unfortunate development in the modern era.

    Now, if that’s radical and worthy of disdain, then fine. But as I see it, this is a big part of what 2k is all about: to preserve the spiritual nature of the church in order that she not become compromised with the political traditions of men and the temporal cares of this world which only serve to alienate people from the gospel.

  59. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    My question pertains to Jed, Zrim, and DGH considering what Darryl G. Hart has written to Mark McCulley:

    “McMark, 2kers have always distinguished between what Christians do and the church does. The mistake for most critics of 2k is to assume that their norms, because they believe the norms are biblical, apply to everyone else. 2k has been all about limiting the church to what Scripture teaches. Christians have freedom to think their view is biblical, but they need to get the church to back them up if all believers are going to follow.”

    Pastor J.D. Greear: “Again, marriage was not invented by government; it was merely recognized by the government. God is the designer, and God established it as the union of a man and woman in an exclusive, life-long covenant.

    So, I encourage you go out and vote in support of this amendment this Tuesday. I want you to do so as an act of service and love for our community.”

    Does R2K doctrine have no problem with Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement to his congregation to vote in favor of the North Carolina Marriage Amendment to keep marriage defined as one-man, one-woman?

  60. justsinner99 says:

    “This doesn’t mean at all the morality of certain behaviors is to be avoided. It simply means that when they have become politicized we do well to stop and ask how the political nature might hinder the spiritual thrust.”

    ————————————-

    I couldn’t agree more. I would never make a decidedly political comment in the pulpit without giving it a LOT of thought. And I would be careful to make sure that the substance of the sermon is still Christ (not politics).

    That being said, I would still be OK with what that pastor said.

  61. P.L.M. says:

    Jed, let’s get the context straight. Darryl asked me this:

    “What exactly are one or two of the “radical” statements 2kers make?”

    I fulfilled my burden, did I not? You want to talk about “as a whole,” when I’ve never said that. My claim is that Zrim’s view of 2K has some radical implications, and he holds to those radical implications.

  62. P.L.M. says:

    Jed, Zrim and Darryl don’t let me in. And they refuse to grant me one point. They have NEVER said I had a point, agreed with me, or toned done their rhetoric. Instead, they have opposed me at every turn.

    As an aside, and I’m willing to be corrected, but I wouldn’t call Tuininga a *philosopher* as, according to the Emory website, he’s not in the *philosophy* PhD program.

  63. P.L.M. says:

    “All in all, I think that the dilemmas between 2k and philosophical theology has been a false one, one that hopefully will subside with time.”

    I’ve argued that there isn’t a dilemma. I’ve argued in fact that 2K presupposes philosophical positions and entails some. I have argued, however, that it is the statements made by many of the most prominent 2Kers—Hart, Horton, Clark—and their vocal and loud blogging contingent—Zrim, Stellman, etc—that hinder the discussion, bring much unneeded troubles, and overall discredit 2K in the eyes of most. That is, *given* the absurd and over-the-top statements made by all of them. Imagine if Hart and Zrim and Clark had listened to me 4 or so years ago.

  64. P.L.M. says:

    Zrim, you’re a dishonest debater.

    You said: “my own concern is to see more caution exercised when anything has become politicized.”

    Who disagrees with that, Zrim? This is an example of how you cause undue offense and how you violate rules of civility and generally debase discourse. Every Christian would agree with this! But you’re setting *yourself* up as the careful, thoughtful, and cautious one, while others are unthinking philistines who run half-hazardly into political discussion. Lastly, Zrim, you’re dishonest to present yourself this way for the statement at issue, i.e., the example of the “radical” comment you’ve made, is decidedly NOT your above “concern.” If you really believed the above, why wouldn’t you state your position more cautiously rather than in absurd, absolutist, unrelenting, and unforgiving terms?

    You of course won’t respond to this but will caricature, misrepresent, side-track, build yourself up, etc.

  65. Zrim says:

    Andy, is your office limited to the pulpit, or does it go with you wherever you go and have implications for what you say outside of it? What the pastor said was actually a fairly mixed message. On the one hand, he encourages a specific vote. On the other, he encourages liberty. So which is it? And what about those who aren’t compelled either way and see abstaining as perfectly legitimate? It seems to me that when those called to spiritual vocation try their hand at political advice they end up flubbing, so why not stick to that which one is limited? After all, I don’t go to my doctor for plumbing advice or my plumber for medical instruction.

  66. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    Zrim,

    Does R2K doctrine have no problem with Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement to his congregation asking them to vote “Yes” in favor of the North Carolina Marriage Amendment to keep marriage defined as one-man, one-woman?

    Or does Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement violate R2K doctrine?

    A short answer to the point of the question would be helpful. Thank you.

  67. Zrim says:

    TUAD, you can’t surmise from my above comment an answer?

  68. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    No Zrim. Please be more clear and explicit without any unhelpful ambiguity and/or equivocation.

  69. justsinner99 says:

    My opinions are for outside the pulpit, obviously. But I would not equate plumbing advice with statements on the sanctity of marriage or of life. (Not exactly a fair comparison, eh?)

    And, personally, I would probably prefer to make political statements some other way (even if as a pastor), such as emailing our members or something like that. But I don’t think it is out of line to say what that pastor said,even from the pulpit.

    I will admit that I am very hesitant to say anything that is decidedly political from the pulpit and would only do so after long and careful consideration. Not only that, but I usually cringe when I hear (or read about) pastors talking politics from the pulpit. It brings to my mind images of Falwell or Pat Robertson. Heck, I always sorta liked D. James Kennedy, but I almost always changed the station when he was going off on one of his endless political harangues.

    If 2K’s goal in this regard is to keep us pastors from going down those particular politico-pulpit roads, you’ve got my vote. (Pun intended.)

  70. dgh says:

    TuaD, do you have a problem with Paul’s remark that all Christians agree with Zrim that caution should be exercised in politics. Was J.D. Greear expressing such caution?

    A short answer would be helpful.

  71. Zrim says:

    Andy, my point wasn’t so much to equate plumbing advice with moral or spiritual guidance. It was a point about vocations and jurisdictions.

    And I wonder if you think there is anything to the idea that pastors have a special burden on them, such that they might be called to hold their political opinions closer to their chests than ordinary members? This might be more difficult for pastors who are particularly political, but could it be that once ordained to a spiritual and public office that political statements even in the forms of private email be more censored? To be clear, this isn’t to say that pastors mayn’t have political views or even express them, rather to say that their spiritual office seems to place a special, cautionary burden on them. If a parishioner comes to you asking for political advice, is there something to be said for reminding him that that simply is not in your so-called job description?

    If so, I am having harder time with Greear.

  72. justsinner99 says:

    Like I said, I agree.

    But if you are really saying that political statements per se are *not* verboten, could you give an example (hypothetical or otherwise) of one that you would find acceptable? That could help clarify.

    When I first read the example that TUAD gave, I have to admit that I cringed a bit. But after giving it a lot of thought (which seems to be your point), I concluded that it was acceptable.

  73. dgwired says:

    Andy,

    How’s this from J. Gresham Machen, a minister and a Democrat?

    April 20, 1933

    The Honorable Gifford Pinchot
    Governor of Pennsylvania
    Harrisburg, Pa.

    Dear Sir:

    Will you permit me to express, very respectfully, my opposition to the Bill designated “House Bill No. 1″ regarding permission of commercialized sport between the hours of two and six on Sunday afternoons?

    It is clear that in this matter of Sunday legislation the liberty of part of the people will have to be curtailed. It is impossible that people who desire a quiet Sunday should have a quiet Sunday, while at the same time people who desire commercialized sport on Sunday should have commercialized sport. The permission of commercialized sport will necessarily change the character of the day for all of the people and not merely for part of the people.

    The only question, therefore, is whose liberty is to be curtailed. I am convinced that in this case it ought, for the welfare of the whole people, to be the liberty of those who desire commercialized sport.

    The curtailment of their liberty, through the existing law, does not, I am convinced, go beyond reasonable bounds. There is, it seems to me, a sharp distinction of principle between complete prohibition of some form of activity or enjoyment and reasonable regulation of it in the interest of other people. To ask that commercialized sport should dispense with one day out of seven for the benefit of that large part of our population that desires a quiet Sunday and believes that it is necessary to the welfare of the State does not seem to me to be unreasonable.

    Of course it is perfectly clear that in a democracy the majority should rule in this matter as in other matters. I should be the last to advocate any attempt to make people religious or even to make people ordinarily moral or decent against their will by mere legislative enactment. I should also be the last to advocate any tyrannical imposition of the convictions of a minority upon the majority. But how shall the majority will be exercised? I think that it ought to be exercised through the ordinary processes of representative government. To allow commercialized sport on Sunday in Pennsylvania will be a radical change in the whole life of our people. It is a wise provision of representative government that such radical changes should not be hastily accomplished, as might be the case by the referendum vote, but that they should be accomplished only when it is quite clear that the majority of the people really and seriously and permanently desires the change. . . .

    As to the merits of the question, I could hardly find words strong enough to express what my feeling is. It does seem to me that the profoundest dangers to our entire civilization are found in the constant rush of noise and jazz and feverish activity which is one of the great faults of the American people and which is a great barrier to true efficiency as well as to the cultivation of the deeper things.

    Of course, my own cultivation of a quiet Sunday is based on considerations much more fundamental than these. I am a Christian, and it is quite clear that a commercialized Sunday is inimical to the Christian religion. There are many other Christians in Pennsylvania, and because they are Christians they do not cease to be citizens. They have a right to be considered by their fellow-citizens and by the civil authorities. But the reason why they can with a good conscience be enthusiastic advocates of the Christian practice in the matter of Sunday is that they regard it as right, and as for the highest well-being of the entire State.

    Very truly yours,

    J. Gresham Machen, Professor of New Testament in Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

  74. sean says:

    There’s another aspect to this argument which may have already been made(can’t follow all the comments) but one of the arguments that finally got made to keep the state out of the church’s business was that they were incompetent to adjudicate matters of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. That determination necessarily cuts both ways. Maybe a little humility on the church’s part is in order when it comes to ‘talking’ to the state about coercive matters of legislation. Furthermore, considering the authority which a pastor wields behind the pulpit in a gathered congregation, I would think a little fear and trepidation would be in order when tempted to comment on matters not directly pertaining to the word of God, or which may illegitimately bind a believers conscience. If the pastor desires from his people rapt attention and consideration of the word preached ‘as if’ coming forth with the authority of Christ himself, it seems to me, if I’m a pastor, I would want to err on the side of circumspection when it comes to matters of political (coercive) conviction.

  75. justsinner99 says:

    Random: I grew up in central PA and we used to go to Pinchot Park in the summertime.

    Now I know for whom it was named.

    Hard for me not to like anything that Machen wrote. I realize that this was not from the pulpit and was not designed to tell a congregation how to vote, but he was clearly a political man.

    Thanks for posting this.

  76. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    “TuaD, do you have a problem with Paul’s remark that all Christians agree with Zrim that caution should be exercised in politics. Was J.D. Greear expressing such caution?
    A short answer would be helpful.”

    Darryl G. Hart, I’ll answer your question after you FIRST answer the question I posed earlier to you, Jed, and Zrim:

    Does R2K doctrine have no problem with Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement to his congregation asking them to vote “Yes” in favor of the North Carolina Marriage Amendment to keep marriage defined as one-man, one-woman?

    Or does Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement violate R2K doctrine?

    I’ll make it easier for all three of you. Choose between (A) and (B) below:

    (A) Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement VIOLATES R2K doctrine.
    (B) Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement DOES NOT violate R2K doctrine.

    That’s it. Just respond (A) or (B).

    Paul (P.L.M.) wrote this in a comment above: “He [Darryl G. Hart] dodges. A lot.”

    Darryl, show Paul that you’re not going to dodge this one. Just respond with either (A) or (B).

    P.S. Pastor Andy, (JustSinner99), please do notice that Jed, Zrim, and Darryl G. Hart have all so far refused to answer this simple question about R2K with a clear answer.

  77. justsinner99 says:

    Nice new screen name, BTW.

    I would just add that being a Democrat in 1933 and being one in 2012 are, in many ways, very different things. Reagan himself used to be a Democrat. (The same could also be said for many Republicans, no doubt.)

  78. Zrim says:

    Andy, dgh has supplied an example of something acceptable. I know you didn’t ask, but for good measure here’s something I find the exact opposite:

    http://baylyblog.com/blog/2009/06/sermon-president-and-people-god

    And to appease our friend Paul and show that 2kers of the WSC variety can disagree, here is something I wonder about:

    http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-latest-post/2007/7/18/my-personal-voting-guide.html

  79. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    “But after giving it a lot of thought (which seems to be your point), I concluded that it was acceptable.”

    Very good, Pastor Andy. Very good conclusion. Bravissimo!

  80. justsinner99 says:

    Steve, Daryl’s example was not from the pulpit and was not addressed to a congregation in any way. (I guess that was his point.)

    Will check the links that you posted above.

  81. Zrim says:

    Sean, Dabney is good for instilling some SOTC fear:

    God has reserved for our spiritual concerns one day out of seven, and has appointed one place into which nothing shall enter, except the things of eternity, and has ordained an order of officers, whose sole charge is to remind their fellow-men of their duty to God…But when the world sees a portion or the whole of this sacred season abstracted from spiritual concerns, and given to secular agitations, and that by the appointed guardians of sacred things, it is the most emphatic possible disclosure of unbelief. It says to men, “Eternity is not of more moment than time; heaven is not better than earth; a man is profited if he gains the world and loses his soul, for do you not see that we postpone eternity to time, and heaven to earth, and redemption to political triumph—we who are the professed guardians of the former?” One great source, therefore, of political preaching may always be found in the practical unbelief of [the preacher] himself; as one of its sure fruits is infidelity among the people. He is not feeling the worth of souls, nor the “powers of the world to come,” nor “the constraining love of Christ” as he should; if he were, no sense of the temporal importance of his favorite political measures, however urgent, would cause the wish to abstract an hour from the few allowed him for saving souls.

  82. Zrim says:

    …and a little Machen:

    . . . you cannot expect from a true Christian church any official pronouncements upon the political or social questions of the day, and you cannot expect cooperation with the state in anything involving the use of force. Important are the functions of the police, and members of the church, either individually or in such special associations as they may choose to form, should aid the police in every lawful way in the exercise of those functions. But the function of the church in its corporate capacity is of an entirely different kind. Its weapons against evil are spiritual, not carnal; and by becoming a political lobby, through the advocacy of political measures whether good or bad, the church is turning aside from its proper mission. . . .

  83. justsinner99 says:

    I found myself heartily agreeing with KR’s blog piece that you linked. 🙂

  84. sean says:

    Zrim,

    Good to know it’s been said better and before. Really like Dabney’s quote

  85. Pingback: WCF Says No on Gay Marriage | The Confessional Outhouse

  86. justsinner99 says:

    Didn’t Calvin at times write dedications to public officials/rulers in his written works?

    Didn’t John the [not Ana]Baptist openly rebuke Herod for sexual immorality (even an improper marriage!) in John 14:4?

  87. dghart says:

    TuaD, this is rich. You claim I dodge questions. Well, let’s see. I have written how many blog posts about 2k, done how many interviews, spoken at how many conferences and answered questions, and written a couple books, and yet, if I don’t take your bait I dodge. This from a guy who won’t reveal his identity, and generally responds to other comments by linking to other blogs or by trying to play one commenter against another. I’d say, “dodger, dodge thyself.”

    BTW, part of the reason for avoiding your questions is that they are on the order of do you still beat your wife? 2k is not radical, and it is not a body of doctrine with one set of rules.

  88. dghart says:

    Andy, the point was not about whether or not he addressed a congregation, though that has some bearing. It is instead how different Machen might sound telling other Christians to observe the sabbath vs. how he addresses civil authorities in a society where Christianity is not established.

  89. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    Darryl G. Hart: “This from a guy who won’t reveal his identity, and generally responds to other comments by linking to other blogs or by trying to play one commenter against another.”

    I post pseudonymously, that’s correct. As far as the second half of your rant, Zrim did exactly what you’re ranting about in his post above. He linked to other blogs and he played one commenter (you, Darryl G. Hart) against another (Carl Trueman). Why aren’t you ranting against Zrim? Darryl G. Hart, have you read Paul (P.L.M.’s) comments about your hypocrisy?

    Zrim: “With all due respect to my fellow Outhouser who approvingly linked us to Carl Trueman’s response to Jason Stellman’s developed views, there is a better way to assess the correlation between those views and two kingdom theology. The latter is actually a way to signal an older, more robust Protestantism. To the contrary of some, it is not a gateway by which to cross the Tiber.”

  90. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    Darryl G. Hart: “BTW, part of the reason for avoiding your questions is that they are on the order of do you still beat your wife?”

    No they are not. Your comparison doesn’t work. Look again:

    Does R2K doctrine have no problem with Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement to his congregation asking them to vote “Yes” in favor of the North Carolina Marriage Amendment to keep marriage defined as one-man, one-woman?

    Or does Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement violate R2K doctrine?

    I’ll make it easier for all three of you. Choose between (A) and (B) below:

    (A) Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement VIOLATES R2K doctrine.
    (B) Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement DOES NOT violate R2K doctrine.

    That’s it. Just respond (A) or (B).

    Paul (P.L.M.) wrote this in a comment above: “He [Darryl G. Hart] dodges. A lot.”

    Darryl, show Paul that you’re not going to dodge this one. Just respond with either (A) or (B).

  91. justsinner99 says:

    Honestly not trying to stir the pot, but I honestly don’t see what is so difficult about answering TUAD’s question. How exactly is it a loaded question?

    I think I can ascertain Zrim’s answer from his comments (although him just picking A or B would be far simpler).

    Daryl, not trying to put words in your mouth here, but I assume that you would disapprove of Pastor Greear’s comments from the pulpit, correct?

    Am I missing something that makes a simple, straight-forward answer to TUAD’s question more difficult? (Seems far simpler than Paul’s island death vote hypothetical.) – Andy

  92. dghart says:

    TuaD, Zrim actually writes posts.

    I object to the word radical to describe 2k. You know that.

  93. dghart says:

    Adam, 2k is not radical. 2k is not a body of doctrine. It’s a poorly framed question. Plus, TuaD has a long history of trying to bait 2kers.

  94. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    Darryl Hart, don’t misconstrue simple, straightforward, clarifying questions as “baiting”.

    As Pastor Andy said, “but I honestly don’t see what is so difficult about answering TUAD’s question.”

    Pastor Andy, Darryl G. Hart’s refusal to answer a simple, straightforward, clarifying question confirms Paul/P.L.M.’s descriptions of Darryl.

  95. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    Zrim: And to appease our friend Paul and show that 2kers of the WSC variety

    2kers of the WSC variety

    Thank you, Zrim, thank you. Thank you for identifying yourself as a 2Ker of the WSC variety. Thank you for writing on Kim Riddlebarger’s thread the term “W2K”.

    As I wrote above on June 13, 2012 at 3:36pm:

    “But don’t act so incredulous as to how anyone could possibly take your brand of 2K to be radical.”

    Zrim, Paul is right.

    In fact, there are a good number of people who object to the move of R2Kers to linguistically reposition themselves as 2Kers.

    —-

    Zrim, DG Hart, Jed Paschall, Sean, et al, if you all would continue to forever write “W2K” or “2K of the WSC variety” so as to not muddy up the waters of 2K, then that would be very helpful and much appreciated.

  96. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    If you all agree to use “W2K” instead of “2K” from this point forward, I’ll join you all in calling it “W2K”.

    What say thee, Zrim, Darryl G. Hart, Jed Pascall, Sean, et al?

  97. justsinner99 says:

    TUAD wrote:

    “(A) Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement VIOLATES R2K doctrine.
    (B) Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement DOES NOT violate R2K doctrine.

    That’s it. Just respond (A) or (B). ”
    ————————————————
    Daryl, so you are mainly objecting to the way that the question is stated?

    Let’s leave the “R” (i.e. R2K instead of just 2K) part out of the equation for the moment. Is your point then that there is no consensus regarding what constitutes the version of 2K that you and others hold to? (You said that it is “not a body of doctrine.”)

    If he had just stated the question as follows, would you have been able to answer it simply?

    (A) Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement VIOLATES my view of 2K.

    (B) Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement DOES NOT violate my view of 2K.

    That’s it. Just respond (A) or (B).

    Does that change the dynamic at all for you? (Does it make it a more fair question?

    TUAD – does that revision to your posed question change too much for it to still serve your purpose in asking it?

    – Andy

  98. Zrim says:

    TUAD, I don’t know what import you think any sort of prefix has. You seem to think it has to do with admitting there are different varieties of 2k. But this has always been freely admitted. Ever since Augustine, everybody is theoretically 2k. But its application is where there are differences. So what?

  99. RubeRad says:

    TUAD, you have missed a lot of history here in the ‘house. We’ve been using the term W2K frequently, and from the beginning. Here are six pages of Google results, or — since you’re in an Outhouse — you could just read the grafitti

  100. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    Zrim: “TUAD, I don’t know what import you think any sort of prefix has.”

    Distinctions are helpful. Prefixes help in making useful distinctions.

    Do you promise to use W2K from now on instead of just 2K?

  101. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    RubeRad: “We’ve been using the term W2K frequently, and from the beginning.

    Terrific! Let’s use the term W2K all the time when referring to the variant of 2K that DG Hart, Zrim, you, Sean, Jed Pascall, and others advocate and promote!

  102. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    Darryl G. Hart, answer Pastor Andy’s question below:

    (A) Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement VIOLATES my view of 2K.

    (B) Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement DOES NOT violate my view of 2K.

    That’s it. Just respond (A) or (B).

    —-

    P.S. Pastor Andy, your question is fine with me.

  103. Zrim says:

    Sorry, TUAD, I don’t take well to being dictated to. You’ll have to deal with me just as I am, without one plea–think of it as your cross to bear.

  104. justsinner99 says:

    I think that would be helpful.

    As a WSCA grad (2001, M.Div) I certainly would not use the “W” as anything but a compliment.

  105. justsinner99 says:

    Zrim, you’d have made Billy Graham himself proud with that one!

    (For the record, I like Billy Graham.)

  106. justsinner99 says:

    (Of course, Billy Graham speaks to Presidents, so . . . .) 😉

  107. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    “I think that would be helpful.

    As a WSCA grad (2001, M.Div) I certainly would not use the “W” as anything but a compliment.”

    Thank you, Pastor Andy! It’s quite helpful, indeed.

  108. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    FYI. I’ve seen the following terms used interchangeably:

    Radical 2K (R2K)
    Escondido 2K (E2K)
    Westminster West 2K (W2K or WSW2K)
    Natural Law 2K (NL2K)
    Neo-2K

    But just not generic “2K”!!!

  109. RubeRad says:

    Don’t forget the term I invented: Z2K

  110. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    RubeRad: “Don’t forget the term I invented: Z2K”

    Z2K? Z2K? Z2K!!!

    Oh my goodness! That sounds like “Zrim’s 2K”! That’s majorly radical, dude!

    And you know what? Z2K is much better than just saying “2K”!!

  111. Paula Pinkerton says:

    And he will go to any political extreme to make sure that R2K is predominate.

  112. Paula Pinkerton says:

    Why is politics non-Spiritual?

    Are all things in the common realm, by definition, non Spiritual?

  113. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    “And he will go to any political extreme to make sure that R2K is predominate.”

    Paula Pinkerton, that seems paradoxical, yes?!

    Whose “he” by the way? Zrim? Darryl G. Hart?

    P.S. I’m heartened by your use of “R2K” to delineate and clarify the variant of 2K that you’re referring to.

  114. Truth Unites... and Divides says:

    Darryl G. Hart (Zrim, and Jed Paschall), if you want an easier question, answer Pastor Andy’s question below:

    (A) Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement VIOLATES my view of 2K.

    (B) Pastor J.D. Greear’s statement DOES NOT violate my view of 2K.

    That’s it. Just respond (A) or (B).

  115. Zrim says:

    Paula, would you also say Jesus was a radical extremist when he said his kingdom was not of this world or admonished Peter to sheath his sword or otherwise resisted every effort to promote his kingdom politically instead of spiritually?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s