What makes someone "Radical 2k"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
jwright82 said:
My thoughts on Van Til, and this whole debate (I started a whole thread on it for others opinion), are as any great thinker he was multifaceted and so it's no surprise that his warrior children are divided on how best to interpret/develop his thinking. One side emphasizes the absolute antithesis (which in the extreme results in not being able to communicate with the unbeliever), the other emphasizes common grace (which in the extreme results in basically absolute neutrality with some Vantillian buzzwords thrown in for taste). I think he lies more in the middle. It was his way of analysis that gave rise to this, I think Frame and Poythress are right in their perspectival interpretation of him. From one perspective he seems to agree with strong antithesis, from another strong common grace. But if you keep both poles in mind and his method of analysis it makes more sense.
I for one have rejected the idea that he gave an absolute argument (in the traditional sense) for Christianity in favor of an absolute method of apologetics. The difference is this captures the fact that when he talks of this proof he does it from different angles, hence more of a method.
Click to expand...
But for CVT one can only account for common grace if he presuppose the Christian worldview.
 
Henry Hall said:
But for CVT one can only account for common grace if he presuppose the Christian worldview.
Click to expand...
Yes that's correct, one logically only account for natural law from a Christian worldview, that's an apologetic method though. As far as common grace goes whether they can account for it on their worldview, which they can't, doesn't change the fact that it's operative none the less. That's a place you can challenge them.
 
jwright82 said:
Yes that's correct, one logically only account for natural law from a Christian worldview, that's an apologetic method though. As far as common grace goes whether they can account for it on their worldview, which they can't, doesn't change the fact that it's operative none the less. That's a place you can challenge them.
Click to expand...
I was talking about common grace, but since you mentioned law, yes, the fact that any use of the concept of law necessitates the Christian worldview, entails that the governing authorities, as such, must recognize and submit to the all-conditioning, self-revelatory God, kissing the Son.
 
Henry Hall said:
I was talking about common grace, but since you mentioned law, yes, the fact that any use of the concept of law necessitates the Christian worldview, entails that the governing authorities, as such, must recognize and submit to the all-conditioning, self-revelatory God, kissing the Son.
Click to expand...
That's stretching it a bit, I see where you're going. I was reffering to society functioning with natural law already in place vs an apologetical method. Since the state doesn't explicitly do the things you mentioned than how can you account for why we have laws in the first place?
 
Wow, what a thread this is. I poked my head in for the first time this morning and skimmed my way through the sea of posts. I'm not well informed on this topic, but see a wealth of links and references to look into later.

While reluctant to enter the fray, I did want to mention a book I purchased just yesterday coincidentally, which is a critique of two kingdoms theology. The title is "The World is Christ's: A Critique of Two Kingdoms Theology" by Willem J. Ouweneel.

Is anyone familiar with this book or the author?

From the back of the book:

"The 'Two Kingdoms' controversy has become a matter of increasing scholarly debate in recent decades. However, this is one debate which is not confined to the academy.​

As Willem J. Ouweneel demonstrates in The World is Christ's, behind the scholarly terms lie very practical, everyday questions, such as where to shop, whether and how to vote, and how to educate our children. The Two Kingdoms controversy is at root a question of how we ought to understand and live in a world that refuses to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord.

Dr. Ouweneel details a number of historical, logical, and exegetical considerations surrounding these questions, and helps readers understand that everything we do is an act of worship--the issue is whether our worship is directed toward God or away from him.

It is through us that God wants to realize his kingdom, every day a bit further, in every domain of life, because the world is Christ's."​
 
jwright82 said:
Since the state doesn't explicitly do the things you mentioned then how can you account for why we have laws in the first place?
Click to expand...

Since the creation of the first man, no society of men has been without law. Without law, a society, commonwealth, or whatever you call it, would not exist. Law is a form of warfare. Every law declares specific individuals or groups of individuals as enemies of the state and therefore are coerced by appropriate (we could hope) power to cease the rebellious offense or offenses. As I said previously, All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion.

Neither is there neutrality in law. Take one example. In the Bible, even the accidental killing of a baby still in the mother's womb could result in death of the "murderer." In our country, this is backward in that the law permits abortion, which results in the murder of an innocent child. There is a death in either case: the abortionist's death or the child's death. The only question is, Who is going to die? There is no neutral ground between the two laws.

Some of my ideas were taken from, Rushdoony, R. J. (1973). The institutes of Biblical law, volume one (p. 113). Nutley, NJ: Craig Press.​
 
jwright82 said:
That's stretching it a bit, I see where you're going. I was reffering to society functioning with natural law already in place vs an apologetical method. Since the state doesn't explicitly do the things you mentioned than how can you account for why we have laws in the first place?
Click to expand...
Humans, according to their places and stations, make laws to serve their gods. It’s what they do.
 
Some of these comments still equate neutrality with common.

A red light is common. Sure, it reflects order, which reflects rationality, which reflects God (incidentally, the same argument made by Thomas Aquinas on natural law). But to fret over supposed neutrality on every statute is mind-numbing.
 
While I don't think we should retreat from society (that's one extreme), I do think there is another extreme where the church is supposed to be politically obnoxious and come up with political action committees to advocate for fair housing prices.
 
I think the harkening to natural law ship has sailed as well. You don’t? How do you define natural law?
jwright82 said:
Okay, that's good. But not sure that D. G. Hart would be "radical", however it's defined. But I agree with the rest of it. But simple 2 kingdom people, myself and I believe Hart, would emphasize natural law as dictating human behaviour. What you describe is radical. But I don't think it applies to simple 2 kingdom people. I also think radical goes beyond that as well, like accepting gay marriage as ok to support (Lee and Mysty Irons, I believe?) as civil unions.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A.Joseph said:
Is that happening?

By default, I’m retreating from presidential politics, at least from the uniparty system. That’s a loser for sure. Unless the shadow gov is usurped. Which outside divine providence, won’t happen.
Click to expand...

Is what happening? I think the fear over "2K" is overblown. Most evangelical churches have issued statements against abortion. BUt since the church isn't the state, we can't lobby for political action reform. We preach the gospel. Etc.
 
Ed Walsh said:
Since the creation of the first man, no society of men has been without law. Without law, a society, commonwealth, or whatever you call it, would not exist. Law is a form of warfare. Every law declares specific individuals or groups of individuals as enemies of the state and therefore are coerced by appropriate (we could hope) power to cease the rebellious offense or offenses. As I said previously, All law is religious in nature, and every non-Biblical law-order represents an anti-Christian religion.

Neither is there neutrality in law. Take one example. In the Bible, even the accidental killing of a baby still in the mother's womb could result in death of the "murderer." In our country, this is backward in that the law permits abortion, which results in the murder of an innocent child. There is a death in either case: the abortionist's death or the child's death. The only question is, Who is going to die? There is no neutral ground between the two laws.

Some of my ideas were taken from, Rushdoony, R. J. (1973). The institutes of Biblical law, volume one (p. 113). Nutley, NJ: Craig Press.​
Click to expand...
Since I never said there was neutrality in spirit or in mind, I won't comment on that. But we exist in an orderly realm, not perfect, but necessary.
 
We've defined natural law about two or three dozen times here over the past six months. Natural law is a human application of the Eternal Law, which is the Divine Mind. This is the historic, pre-Grotian position.
 
Henry Hall said:
The general equity of 19:4 refers to perfect morality.

But you said natural law is a human application. Humans aren’t perfect.

Explain.
Click to expand...

Humans apply laws. Even God's perfect law has to be applied by humans. Example: In vitro Fertilization. Is it legit or not? God's perfect law doesn't address this, so humans have to use their fallible logic and fallibly apply it to determine what to do. This is true of every single law code in human history.

God's perfect law doesn't exist in some Platonic vacuum where it directly addresses every contingency. It has to be applied. This application is a function of natural law. That explains why our Reformed fathers all held to natural law but also used God's law, too.
 
This is a strange discussion in that natural law is no longer binding in the cultural/political spheres. There’s too much atheism and faux Christianity to have a compelling impact and influence in mainstream society. I don’t see how attempts to “affirm a robust doctrine of natural law as part of our system of doctrine” will have much of an impact. I think believers already buy into such concepts. Our inability to apply them is due to the current state of the world and its adversity to even the truths of natural law grounded in God’s creation.

See: Natural Law in Reformed Theology: Historical Reflections and Biblical Suggestions
by David VanDrunen https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=301&issue_id=74
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Humans apply laws. Even God's perfect law has to be applied by humans. Example: In vitro Fertilization. Is it legit or not? God's perfect law doesn't address this, so humans have to use their fallible logic and fallibly apply it to determine what to do. This is true of every single law code in human history.

God's perfect law doesn't exist in some Platonic vacuum where it directly addresses every contingency. It has to be applied. This application is a function of natural law. That explains why our Reformed fathers all held to natural law but also used God's law, too.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t explain how natural law, understood the way you understand it, can be the perfect general equity of WCF 19.4.
 
Henry Hall said:
That doesn’t explain how natural law, understood the way you understand it, can be the perfect general equity of WCF 19.4.
Click to expand...

There is nothing to explain. Equity is simply the application of a law to a unique circumstance. There is no "perfect" once for all equity. Equity isn't some Platonic concept.
 
Whether the Christian Magistrate be bound to observe the Judicial laws of Moses, as well as the Jewish Magistrate was. He answereth by the common distinction, he is obliged to those things in the Judicial law which are unchangeable, and common to all Nations:
GILLESPIE, GEORGE, Wholesome Severity Reconciled With Christian Liberty (London: Christopher Meredith, 1645), 6–7.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
There is nothing to explain. Equity is simply the application of a law to a unique circumstance. There is no "perfect" once for all equity. Equity isn't some Platonic concept.
Click to expand...
No, general equity, as it is understood in WCF 19.4, is not human application. It is of a piece with the moral law. The perfect moral law.
 
Henry Hall said:
No, general equity, as it is understood in WCF 19.4, is not human application. It is of a piece with the moral law. The perfect moral law.
Click to expand...

Equity just means what is fair. There is no Platonic realm of general equity. And the writers of the Confession do not equate the judicials with general equity simpliciter. Otherwise they wouldn't use expired language.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
And the writers of the Confession do not equate the judicials with general equity simpliciter
Click to expand...
No one here says that.

Equity refers to what is moral.

If the general equity of 19:4 is as you say human application, then are we to understand Psalm 99:4 (KJV—same English as used in the WCF) as saying that


*3 Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy.

4 The king's strength also loveth judgment; thou dost establish [human application], thou executest judgment and righteousness in Jacob

?
 
Henry Hall said:
No one here says that.

Equity refers to what is moral.

If the general equity of 19:4 is as you say human application, then are we to understand Psalm 99:4 (KJV—same English as used in the WCF) as saying that


*3 Let them praise thy great and terrible name; for it is holy.

4 The king's strength also loveth judgment; thou dost establish [human application], thou executest judgment and righteousness in Jacob

?
Click to expand...

Do you agree with Gillespie that we should use the common principles of nations?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N. Eshelman
  • Locked
  • Poll
Homosexuality: What Makes Someone Gay?
2
Replies
53
Views
8K
Eoghan
Eoghan
Abd_Yesua_alMasih
  • Locked
What makes marriage?
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
reformed trucker
R
B
  • Locked
What is radical orthodoxy
Replies
1
Views
1K
crhoades
crhoades
TryingToLearn
What makes a true church?
Replies
2
Views
490
TryingToLearn
TryingToLearn
F
  • Locked
What makes a work "A WORK"?
Replies
4
Views
1K
J. Dean
J. Dean
Back
Top