# A Scholarly Critique of the "R2K" School



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 31, 2011)

Very thought-provoking article in the most recent Themelios Journal concerning the current discussion in Reformed circles concerning the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for the Civil Realm.

The author's intent is given as follows:



> In what follows I compare and contrast two broad positions within Reformed theology:
> 
> The first, and at the risk of caricature, are those who both for theological and tactical reasons argue for the ‘insufficiency’ (or maybe less polemically ‘illegitimacy’) of the use of the Bible in the public realm but rather the ‘sufficiency’ (or probably better, ‘legitimacy’) of natural revelation embodied in a natural law.
> 
> The second argue for precisely the opposite.



Themelios | Article: Not Ashamed The Sufficiency Of Scripture For Public Theology - The Gospel Coalition


This article is almost 10,000 words so get a large cup of coffee and find a comfy chair. He deals directly with the works of David Vandrunen, T. David Gordon, Michael Horton, D.G. Hart, and others.


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 31, 2011)

Thank you very much! I have been reading Vandrunan, Hart, and Horton on this issue. One problem I have is in their apparent use of boggymen type presentations. For Horton in his book _God of Promise_ he lists three possible positions to have: Fundementalist (which is bad), Liberalism (which is very bad), or his "version" of Reformed theology (which is unique to those who agree with him). Or Vandrunan in his book _Living in God's Two Kingdoms_ makes it clear that there are only two positions to have either Transformationalists, like Plantinga and Wolterstorff (who are both not Reformed theologically), or his "version" of Reformed thinking. But in both cases they limate the reader to basicaly two choices theirs or some boogyman type bad positions. Why not deal with the middleground Reformed positions first than worry about the extreme, sometimes unreformed, positions. And have the decency to tell the reader that this is not the only Reformed position out there but the one the author beleives is the most biblical or Reformed.


----------



## TimV (Aug 31, 2011)

I wish the author didn't spend so much time on Leithart. Those FV guys engage in innovation like a favorite hobby. So quoting him positively, saying he makes a good case for a third form of grace just muddles things.

It just gives more ammunition to those R2K types who are making the foolish strategic mistake of taking on theonomists with the same breath as FVers, and find themselves painted into an irrelevant corner. 

At this point there needs to be a united front of all Reformed people against the FV and charismatic hipster Calvinists, and what people like Clark are doing* isn't going to do anything other than weaken our already small numbers by fragmenting us.


----------



## timmopussycat (Aug 31, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Very thought-provoking article in the most recent Themelios Journal concerning the current discussion in Reformed circles concerning the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for the Civil Realm.
> 
> The author's intent is given as follows:
> 
> ...



An ill-informed article showing no knowledge or appreciation for how effectively the Westminster Divines bridged the gap between the two positions the author identifies. While making natural law fundamental, the Divines also recognized that OT covenant regulations had much to teach us and they gave us a biblical model–arguably the biblical model–of how to wisely apply Mosaic laws to contexts outside that covenant.


----------



## Fly Caster (Aug 31, 2011)

I truly desire to work through the issues, set aside my preconceived notions and give the R2K guys a fair hearing-- but I read statements like this and I am absolutely flabbergasted:



> ‘The Bible is sufficient to guide the human-as-covenanter, but not sufficient to guide the human-as-mechanic, the human-as-physician, the human-as-businessman, the human-as-parent, the human-as-husband, the human-as-wife, or the human-as-legislator’.



If this is true, and reflects the concensus of the Reformed faith, I might as well go crawling back to my old anti-nomian, dispensational church.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 31, 2011)

Fly Caster said:


> I truly desire to work through the issues, set aside my preconceived notions and give the R2K guys a fair hearing-- but I read statements like this and I am absolutely flabbergasted:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Or it's just common sense. If you have a heart attack, do you want a theologian or a paramedic nearby? Sufficiency means that it provides everything we need to know. The Bible provides everything we need to know for salvation. It does not provide everything we need to know to fix a car. Some areas overlap considerably, though, and that's where most of this cultural tension arises. For example, the Bible does not tell a state senator everything he needs to know to be a state senator. But it does talk about justice, mercy, and wisdom, all things a state senator needs. R2K, transformationalism, etc. have different ways of handling these sorts of areas.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 31, 2011)

jwright82 said:


> Thank you very much! I have been reading Vandrunan, Hart, and Horton on this issue. One problem I have is in their apparent use of boggymen type presentations. For Horton in his book _God of Promise_ he lists three possible positions to have: Fundementalist (which is bad), Liberalism (which is very bad), or his "version" of Reformed theology (which is unique to those who agree with him). Or Vandrunan in his book _Living in God's Two Kingdoms_ makes it clear that there are only two positions to have either Transformationalists, like Plantinga and Wolterstorff (who are both not Reformed theologically), or his "version" of Reformed thinking. But in both cases they limate the reader to basicaly two choices theirs or some boogyman type bad positions. Why not deal with the middleground Reformed positions first than worry about the extreme, sometimes unreformed, positions. And have the decency to tell the reader that this is not the only Reformed position out there but the one the author beleives is the most biblical or Reformed.



You see the same "boogeyman" m.o. on the White Horse Inn, which is why I tuned it out a long time ago.

If that's really what Van Drunen does in his book (I haven't read it) then Neibhur's Christ and Culture paradigm is probably better.

---------- Post added at 12:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 PM ----------




CharlieJ said:


> Fly Caster said:
> 
> 
> > I truly desire to work through the issues, set aside my preconceived notions and give the R2K guys a fair hearing-- but I read statements like this and I am absolutely flabbergasted:
> ...



Who really argues that the Bible is sufficient to be able to fix a car or perform open heart surgery? This is the kind of illegitimate and irresponsible assertion (and then conclusions drawn from it) that made T. David Gordon's article "The Insufficiency of Scripture" so horrible. The distance between that and Misty Irons on homosexuality is a lot closer than many seem able or willing to admit.

---------- Post added at 12:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:29 PM ----------




Fly Caster said:


> I truly desire to work through the issues, set aside my preconceived notions and give the R2K guys a fair hearing-- but I read statements like this and I am absolutely flabbergasted:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's (at least not in the R2k sense) certainly not the consensus of the Reformed faith or even of historic Protestantism (including Baptists) in general. But you are right to make the connection with dispensationalism. In some cases, there's not a lot of difference between R2k and the old "Don't polish the brass on a sinking ship" dispensationalism.


----------



## Fly Caster (Aug 31, 2011)

www.tdgordon.net/theology/insufficiency_​of_scripture.doc


CharlieJ said:


> Fly Caster said:
> 
> 
> > I truly desire to work through the issues, set aside my preconceived notions and give the R2K guys a fair hearing-- but I read statements like this and I am absolutely flabbergasted:
> ...



Does "sufficient" mean 'exhaustive?'

I'll grant that scripture has not much to say to instruct a mechanic about the technical details of replacing a burnt piston on a '73 Volkswagon Beetle. No more than it instructs the church whether to have Sunday morning worship at 9:30 or 11:00. Yet it tells the mechanic (and sufficiently so) about how to conduct his trade as a mechanic, just as it is sufficient in instructing us in the right way of worship.

To make sure I was understanding Gordon properly in context I located the original document HERE. It gets no better. He begins by quoting WCF 1:6, pointing out that "the light of nature" orders some "circumstances" in worship. Confusion sets in, however, when he argues that, while the ordering of such circumstances by something other than scripture allows for the "sufficiency" of scripture in "the life of the covenant community (“worship…government of the church”)," the same lack of scripture's governing of "circumstances" in the life of the mechanic nullifies the claim of "sufficiency" in that realm. Does he really expect us to buy this contradiction? If he wants to go about "denying that “faith and life” is intended to suggest that scriptures are an adequate guide to the various particulars of our lives and callings as humans," the ground for claiming that scripture is "sufficient" in "Covenant Community" matters is removed.

If Gordon merely wants to claim that Scripture is not 'exhaustive,' fine. Yes, common sense tells me that. It also tells me that if God had needed to produce a Talmud for us, in order to give a "sufficient" Word, he would have, and could have, done so. As it is, Scripture in it's perfection speaks to every area of life authoritatively and sufficiently. An exhaustive Talmud would eliminate, for one thing, theneed for preaching and exposition and application of the sufficient Word.

The last paragraph of Gordon's article contains a real gem. He imples that the reason for so many failed Christian marriages is that Christians are "hood-winked by [a] misunderstanding of the sufficiency of scripture," (not that they have failed to live according to the sufficient light that God has revealed). Then he makes this amazing statement, "They know that if a marriage is to work, it will require patience, conversation, reflection, and understanding. It will require that men attempt to understand how and why women function as they do..." Then I open my Bible to 1 Peter 3:7, where it instructs me to dwell with my wife according to knowledge. Gordon, in his wisdom, adds not one iota of sufficiency to what scripture already tells me.

I'm sorry for the thread hi-jack. I won't add any further to it. It's just when I see statements like the earlier quote, my knee is going to jerk.


----------



## jwright82 (Aug 31, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> You see the same "boogeyman" m.o. on the White Horse Inn, which is why I tuned it out a long time ago.
> 
> If that's really what Van Drunen does in his book (I haven't read it) then Neibhur's Christ and Culture paradigm is probably better.



It is exactly what he does. He goes on and on about hyper-transformationalists who in my opinion outside of the reformed faith anyway, I just kept going so what? What about the middle of the road people who are actually reformed and disagree with you? He is right in criticizing basically Dooyweerdians but they seem so outside the reformed faith as to not matter.

---------- Post added at 02:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:20 PM ----------

And quite frankly it is bad scholership In my humble opinion to use such "boogyman" tactics at all. Mybe they do engage really reformed critiques of their views but their apparrent enemies are so outside reformed thinking as to not matter at all.


----------



## Irish Presbyterian (Sep 1, 2011)

VanDrunen's 'Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms' lays out more of the middle road than these other works. His look at the Kyperian legacy is quite interesting.


----------



## itsreed (Sep 1, 2011)

Guys: I'm someone who has sought to listen to both sides in this debate. The neo-2k guys do have some things worth considering, even if they haven't quite coordinated things as well as I would wish (and am still looking for).

That said, do you realize that the "R" in your label for these guys is decidedly pejorative. "R" for radical was first used by someone quite opposed to this position, someone whom most of us would consider radical.

If we want to listen and debate these men, simple respect suggests we not adopt the pejorative labels of those who are harshly opposed to them. Not saying anyone here (especially you Benjamin) is so like minded. Yet in my dealings in these conversations, not assuming the pejorative label has led to much more profitable discussion.


----------



## Hamalas (Sep 1, 2011)

itsreed said:


> Guys: I'm someone who has sought to listen to both sides in this debate. The neo-2k guys do have some things worth considering, even if they haven't quite coordinated things as well as I would wish (and am still looking for).
> 
> That said, do you realize that the "R" in your label for these guys is decidedly pejorative. "R" for radical was first used by someone quite opposed to this position, someone whom most of us would consider radical.
> 
> If we want to listen and debate these men, simple respect suggests we not adopt the pejorative labels of those who are harshly opposed to them. Not saying anyone here (especially you Benjamin) is so like minded. Yet in my dealings in these conversations, not assuming the pejorative label has led to much more profitable discussion.



Perhaps the categories of "Klineian" vs. "Kuyperion" would be more helpful? (At least that's how Frame talks about it.) What think ye?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 1, 2011)

A better category distinction may be 1646 v. 1789? 

Though if one wanted to use "figureheads" for the discussion then maybe Calvin v. Kline? 


The reason I do not use "Kuyper" is the fact I don't believe Kuyper agrees with the 1646 Confessional Establishmentarians when it comes to the details of this discussion.


----------



## Irish Presbyterian (Sep 1, 2011)

It might not be fashionable to use 'Calvin Kline' but I think it fits well!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 1, 2011)

I'm glad someone caught that.


----------



## mvdm (Sep 1, 2011)

itsreed said:


> "R" for radical was first used by someone quite opposed to this position, someone whom most of us would consider radical.



So you believe it's pejorative to denominate this brand of 2k theology as "radical", but it's not pejorative to denominate the _person_ who coined the term as "radical"? 

Beyond the prescient person who first coined the term, the R2k label has become quite mainstream among Reformed folk. The descriptor has been helpful to distinguish it from other more standard versions of "two kingdoms". Reed, you are aware some R2k folks have come to wear the term themselves. Quite proudly, I might add.


----------



## Philip (Sep 1, 2011)

TimV said:


> It just gives more ammunition to those R2K types who are making the foolish strategic mistake of taking on theonomists with the same breath as FVers, and find themselves painted into an irrelevant corner.



Unfortunately, FVers and "hipster Calvinists" seem to be the favored windmills of the day. FV is effectively neutralized at the moment (no, really, it is---the more they start looking like Catholics, the smaller they'll get) and eventually the hipster Calvinists will either grow up or go away. Neither, in the end, are very likely to pose any sort of threat.


----------



## Hamalas (Sep 1, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> A better category distinction may be 1646 v. 1789?
> 
> Though if one wanted to use "figureheads" for the discussion then maybe Calvin v. Kline?
> 
> ...



Perhaps. But it seems as though that still stacks the deck a bit. I'm trying to find a term that either 1) doesn't offend anyone or 2) offends everyone equally.


----------



## itsreed (Sep 2, 2011)

Yes Mark, I'm quite comfortable calling an individual radical if they themselves demonstrate an affinity for the label. If you know someone in this debate who self-labels "radical," go right ahead and call them that. I'll probably choose to demur nevertheless.

I believe it is unhelpful to label this position such. I do not believe those holding to neo-2k (e.g., Hart, Van Drunen) are teaching anything that ends up in heretical territory. Further, I think things are too fluid in the debate at present. Unlike the FV debate, I think there is great possibility of narrowing the gaps between the two sides. It may very well end up with some strong, clearly delineated differences, which nevertheless enable us to affirm each other and lock arms easily. E.g., in general I believe postmillenialism is wrong, and in some areas seriously wrong. Those differences do not outweigh the strength of our eschatological agreements however.

The label "radical" serves to dismiss the other person and deter interaction. As you've seen in other discussions on this subject Mark, it is hard for our flesh to treat with reasonableness and kindness those whose position we have already labeled as something dangerous. This debate does not warrant such heat.


----------



## mvdm (Sep 2, 2011)

Reed, you think using the term radical is pejorative. You then said the fellow who coined the term "R2k" is a "radical" himself. You answered my query to say it's OK to use the term where you believe a person has an affinity for the label for himself. I know of no instance where the author of the term "R2k" self-identifies, or has an affinity for, the label radical. Bottom line, I for one am not buying your inconsistent, selective, and subjective use of the term in this discussion. Let's look objectively at the history, the confessions, and the evidence. On those standards, if the radical shoe fits, let them wear a perfectly good descriptor of their position. 

As for your assessment of the gap between the R2k folks and Reformed folks being bridged and all of us walking arm in arm: I do pray that will happen, but I see no evidence that is the path we're on. Perhaps you know of some instance, but I'm unaware of any R2k advocate who has recanted from the project. To the contrary, all I witness is R2k defenders digging in and becoming more vitriolic against anyone who dares question their re-formulation of the Reformed confessions. I suspect the theological gap is bigger than you think it is.


----------



## itsreed (Sep 2, 2011)

Mark: think what you will.


----------

