Reformed Libertarian - Latest Comments

Re: Hodge vs. Kuyper: Two Modern Reformed Traditions

Brandon Adams — Thu, 11 Oct 2018 20:02:17 -0000

I think further study of Nymeyer is worthwhile (for his insights into Neo-Calvinism):

Opposition to this social gospel movement occupied much of Nymeyer’s effort, particularly as his own denomination was succumbing to its teachings. Many within the mid-20th century CRC had adopted some of the more interventionist ideas of Abraham Kuyper (or Kuijper) (1837–1920), a Neo-Calvinist Dutch theologian and prime minister of the Netherlands from 1901 to 1905. Kuyper, founder of the socially conservative Anti-Revolutionary Party (ARP), opposed socialism but objected also to laissez-faire capitalism and favored some trade restrictions and government labor legislation.8 The ARP, while pluralist in principle, had close ties with the Reformed Church in the Netherlands, a sister church of Nymeyer’s CRC. At the time Nymeyer was writing in Progressive Calvinism, the ARP was transitioning toward the adoption of social justice goals, and favored a more extensive welfare state.9 Some faculty at American institutions in the same Dutch Reformed tradition were moving in the same direction, including Calvin College, Dordt College, and Hope College. No doubt this was influenced by the more general tendency toward progressivism within 20th century society. Many groups hoping to appeal to a younger generation will often find that adopting the ideological positions of youth holds a pragmatic appeal, and ecclesiastical groups are no exception.

In the first volume of Progressive Calvinism, Nymeyer contended that Kuyperian interventionism was simply a milder form of the same pernicious coercion that characterized socialism:

The method to accomplish that Middle-of-the-Road course was to be in-between. That inbetweenness consisted, in turn, in two phases—(1) keeping the appearance of capitalism and (2) introducing the basic principle if not the reality of socialism. The customary word for such a system is Interventionism—the government, having a pipe line of power from God justifying such intervention, leaves life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness nominally in your name but regulates it, little or much as the government in its sovereign right decides, by having laws that interfere and bureaucrats who manage. Hitler was a full-fledged interventionist. The German term for full-fledged interventionism is Zwangswirtschaft (a coercive society). (A Dutchman would translate that as Dwang maatschappij.) Abraham Kuyper believed in just the right (?) degree of dwang maatschappij (coercive society). He was a moderate Hitlerite.

In some denominational schools of Calvinist churches in America they teach an identical doctrine. Not capitalism; oh no; it is sinful or neutral. Not socialism; oh no; it is sinful or neutral. Instead, they teach interventionism—a God-given dwang maatschappij (coercive society) with the right to coercion—contrary to the Decalogue—piped right out of the bottom of the throne of God. But, naturally, only beneficent and welfare-producing coercion! (1955b, p. 344)

https://mises.org/library/e...

Re: Clark and Van Til Must Be Dehomogenized

Brandon Adams — Fri, 28 Sep 2018 12:58:59 -0000

I look forward to your further work on this point. I agree it's necessary.

I think now is a great time to sit back and listen to the Classicalists and the Van Tillians argue and refine their positions. Things are heating up considerably between them with a lot of prominent reformed guys swinging back hard against Van Til - largely because of how Oliphint has used Van Til's epistemology to attack classical theism. I think this will provide some worthwhile clarification. Perhaps after the dust settles, Clark's view can be better contrasted with both.

Here are some relevant links:

https://www.wtsbooks.com/th...

http://www.reformation21.or...

https://contrast2.wordpress...

I'd really like to read Muller's essay on reformed natural theology, but I don't have his volumes.

Junius should definitely be read as he is held up as the best reformed articulation of Aristotealianism http://www.juniusinstitute.... (this used to be formatted better, but looks like it's broken)

Re: Clark vs. Van Til on why General Revelation is Not Helpful

Brandon Adams — Fri, 28 Sep 2018 12:46:03 -0000

Thanks for starting this work. It needs to be done. A couple comments on this particular point:

1) It seems "natural revelation" is a better term for what you are referring to than "general revelation" since Clark did not reject general revelation. He affirmed an innate, apriori, propositional revelation made to all men (general).

2) For Van Til, the issue was not simply the noetic effect of sin. In the other post you said "Van Til believed that it was because the unbeliever wasn’t in covenant with God and that he was a fallen and corrupted sinner, that general revelation was flawed." That's not quite what I have gathered from Van Til. Rather, he believed God has only ever revealed himself to man "covenantally." What is "covenant revelation"? It is a necessary combination of natural and special revelation. Based on a really confused reading of WCF 7.1 (which is simply about the Covenant of Works and the reward of eternal life), he argues that man cannot ever know God apart from special revelation. Natural revelation is always insufficient, even before the fall, because it was never intended to be understood on its own. It always required special revelation in order to be properly understood. So Adam could never have understood who God is through natural revelation alone. Adam required the special revelation that God made in the garden in order to understand who God is and what He requires of man. So that's why Oliphint stresses "Covenantal Apologetics." Natural revelation today is insufficient. It has to be combined with special revelation to be effective.

Re: Clark vs. Van Til on why General Revelation is Not Helpful

C.Jay Engel — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:25:20 -0000

Hi David. I do think that he argued propositions could not be derived from “nature.” If derive means to obtain something from something else, and if Clark taught that the mind does not obtain propositions from nature (because the mind imposes its structure onto nature, rather than nature imposing itself, via the senses, onto the mind) then Clark would indeed say that propositions cannot be derived from nature. Nature, the “external world,” does not produce propositions. They are physical objects.

In any case, yes, I skipped over the biggest difference. Which means I anticipate focusing directly onto such an important subject in a future article. This post was to get something things off my mind:)

Re: Clark vs. Van Til on why General Revelation is Not Helpful

David Bishop — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 09:24:09 -0000

Clark never argued that propositions cannot be derived from nature. Obviously, propositions can be derived from anything. What he argued was that propositional truths (or just simply truth) cannot be derived from the empirical study of nature.

This aside, you are skipping over the biggest difference between Van Til and Clark though. Van Til's neo-orthodox understanding of the incomprehensibility of God not only led him to argue that man's knowledge of God could never be comprehensive (something Clark agreed with), but also that man's knowledge and God's knowledge never at any point intersect. This is the point which led to the Clark-Van Til controversy. According to Van Til's view of the incomprehensibility of God, what man thinks of as a rose can never be what God thinks of as a rose. This led him to conclude that man's knowledge of God is analogical, resulting in the argument that all Scripture is contradictory and must therefore, be accepted on the basis of "mystery". Clarkians argue that while the contents of God's knowledge are greater than the contents of man's knowledge; nevertheless, the contents of man's knowledge do intersect with some of the contents of God's knowledge. In other words, what man thinks of as a rose is what God thinks of as a rose.

Re: On Social Justice, pt 1: The Ambiguity of Social Justice

Brandon Klassen — Wed, 26 Sep 2018 18:49:34 -0000

Thank you for undertaking this. A massive undertaking, but a necessary one. I'm thankful that you have the time, the desire, and the equipping to do so.

Re: The Origins of Papal Power and Dissent

Brandon Adams — Wed, 12 Sep 2018 20:43:15 -0000

The power vacuum aspect is interesting. Might be worth re-visiting Waldron's lectures on church & state as I think he has some discussion of this issue - or at least some literature references to consult. Looking forward to more thoughts (btw, lots of typos).

Re: Reformed Libertarian Lives On: A Reflection

Brandon Adams — Wed, 05 Sep 2018 21:15:22 -0000

Welcome back! Looking forward to it.

Re: Bounds of Love: Review, Part 4 – Moving Forward

Brandon Adams — Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:53:30 -0000

A note of confirmation for my statement above that McDurmon needs to develop a covenant theology consistent with his new perspective comes from a Reconstructionist Radio discussion of his book:

There's a sense in which-- In no way to I believe Joel McDurmon is a dispensationalist. But by pitting the Old Covenant against the New Covenant, it lends to dispensational arguments. That's a huge red flag for me.
http://reconstructionistrad...

Reconstructionism is rooted in a very specific (and narrow minded) covenant theology that McDurmon is now at odds with.

Re: Ethics and Self-Interest: Mises, Clark, Piper, and Rand

Brandon Adams — Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:47:56 -0000

Take a look at 19th century New England/Rhode Island particular baptist Francis Wayland:

Such is self-love. We give this name to that part of our constitution, by which we are incited to do or to for bear, to gratify or to deny our desires, simply on the ground of obtaining the greatest amount of happiness for ourselves, taking into view a limited future, or else our entire future existence. When we act from simple respect to present gratification, we act from passion. When we act from a respect to our whole individual happiness, without regard to the present, only as it is a part of the whole, and with out any regard to the happiness of others, only as it will contribute to our own, we are then said to act from self-love.

-The Elements of Moral Science, BOOK 1, CHAPTER 5, Of Self-Love
https://lonang.com/library/...

Re: Romans 13: A Reformed Libertarian Analysis

Brandon Adams — Sun, 22 Oct 2017 20:29:21 -0000

Adding this quote because I just saw it on Twitter:

God's providence is greatly to be observed, but we are not to make it the rule of our actions. 'Whoso is wise will observe these things.' Psa cvii 43. It is good to observe providence, but we must not make it our rule to walk by. Providence is a Christian's diary, but no his Bible. Sometimes a bad cause prevails and gets ground; but it is not to be liked because it prevails. We must not think the better of what is sinful, because it is successful. This is no rule for our actions to be directed by."
-Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity

Re: Why I Started the Austro-Libertarian Site

bionic mosquito — Sat, 21 Oct 2017 13:58:58 -0000

HOORAY!

Re: Romans 13: A Reformed Libertarian Analysis

Brandon Adams — Mon, 16 Oct 2017 01:00:55 -0000

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you also seem to be equivocating about the nature of the authority involved. If the authority instituted by God refers to his providence, then the wrath in question must be God's providential wrath - i.e. God's use of a ruler to punish a people for their disobedience.

However, you speak of this wrath in terms of God's preceptive will granting authority to rulers. "Every instance of “terror” or “wrath” that is not applied to bad conduct is outside the authority of the role of government." They broke God's preceptive will, therefore they ceased to be the authority spoken of. How can this be if their rule is established by providence, not by precept?

"What happens when God gives an institution authority to exercise wrath, and this institution abuses the wrath?" Again, you're placing the question of authority in the realm of God's preceptive will, not his decretive will. Rulers can't abuse providence. Whereas in v1 you place the authority in the realm of providence. "Paul immediately addresses this sensitive topic with a statement on
the sovereign nature of God. All authority stems from God, and
therefore, if an authority is in power, it is because God has placed or instituted
it. Those governing authorities, in other words, are the means by
which God has determined to accomplish his end. Therefore, the
individual must submit to, that is, be arranged under, the authority.
God does not institute an authority purposelessly."

Re: Romans 13: A Reformed Libertarian Analysis

Brandon Adams — Mon, 16 Oct 2017 00:12:17 -0000

Can you clarify your thoughts on the prescriptive nature of this passage? Is there any command being made to Christians? Or is it just advice? I think the greatest difficulty with this interpretation is that it does not explain how a command can be derived from providence alone.

Those governing authorities, in other words, are the means by which God has determined to accomplish his end. Therefore, the individual must submit to, that is, be arranged under, the authority. God does not institute an authority purposelessly. He has a goal in mind and the Christian ought to humble himself before the Lord and his plans.

The problem is that we do not know God's plan. It's his secret will. Therefore it does not govern our actions. In fact, our actions are part of it. We cannot resist his providence - therefore we cannot submit to his providence. The goal God has in mind in providentially establishing a ruler could be for His people to rebel and overthrow the ruler. That's what happened many times throughout Israel's history, according to God's purpose.

This is a very broad statement that Paul makes. This is not a statement that is uniquely applied to government; the same could be said of anything in reality. The devil himself has been ordained by God as a means by which God will attain some end. The devil, and thieves and murders, exist because God has determined to use them to accomplish various goals, only very few of which we are aware.

Precisely. Must we submit to the devil because God has ordained him for a purpose? No, certainly not. Our guide is God's preceptive will, which commands us to flee and resist the devil. Must we submit to thieves and murderers because God has ordained them for his purpose? Again, no. So why would it be any different with civil rulers? I don't see how providence can be our rule. Consider Robbins' essay God's Will and Healing:

The second opinion seems to be the opposite. It is that a Christian must "submit himself to God's will," and if he is
not getting better, God's will is that he remain sick, and perhaps die from the affliction. He also is told to "submit
himself to the will of God," but to an opposite end, not to get well, but perhaps to die... The mistake is an error - a presumption - of knowledge: It presumes that we can know what the will of God for the future is by reading present circumstances,
and therefore know how to "submit ourselves to the will of God."... The Bible nowhere commands Christians to "submit to
the will of God," precisely because we do not know that will. The Bible commands us hundreds of times to obey God's commands.

http://www.trinityfoundatio...

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Re: Thin Libertarianism and Tory Anarchism

bionic mosquito — Sun, 15 Oct 2017 00:32:45 -0000

Mr. Engel

This is very good. I will add (or maybe it is just a clarification): Hoppe's view is that the only social position that is conducive to achieving and maintaining something close to an NAP-respecting society is that of conservatism.

This does not take away at all from your point: libertarian theory as a political theory is thin. The difference I see in Hoppe vs. many left-libertarians: Hoppe is clear that he is speaking of a strategy to achieve / maintain a libertarian order (as you make clear); many left-libertarians insist that leftist views are part of the NAP.

Re: In Response To Russell Moore’s Scripture-Twisting on Charlottesville

bionic mosquito — Wed, 16 Aug 2017 23:05:53 -0000

Overall a very good take. I will ask about one statement:

"In other words, he takes a salary from the SBC and then uses a good
portion of his time and resources to attack the very people who fund
him."

Mr. Kastler, I am certain you know these groups and individuals far better than I do, but I wonder about this statement. First of all, if a group is funding this individual and he is working against that group...well, why would you conclude that he is working *against* the group? Perhaps he is working against the membership, but is he working against the leadership?

Thank you.

Re: Historically Reformed vs. American Reformed: Church and State

Brandon Adams — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 00:13:51 -0000

Thanks C.Jay. May the Lord help us strike that careful balance between learning from our elders (old dead guys who have much to teach us) and departing from them when they err.

For those interested, here is a detailed summary of how American Presbyterians reformed their covenant theology (rejecting the older consensus) to support religious liberty: http://reformedlibertarian....

Re: Four Months of Silence and a Thought on Two Kingdoms

C.Jay Engel — Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:07:54 -0000

Now I definitely know you misunderstand. And the proof is right here: “The first point establishes some philosophical DMZ between the Christian and the non-Christian” Not at all. Time and time and time again I’ve stated that there is no philosophical neutrality. When I use the religious/secular divide, I’m not talking epistemology. In fact, I address your misunderstanding head on in this blogpost: http://blog.reformedliberta...

“And he’s what, just a non-unique king over the non-elect?” If you read what I said, I explained that he is Lord in a general, sovereign way over every human, but he is a king in a salvific way over his elect. Saying there is no distinction between Christ’s relationship over the elect is to deny the gospel.

“Perhaps he has different expectations of the non-elect than he does for the elect?” No. That’s the problem with the typical 2ker today, as I’ve explained many times. God has the same ethical standards for every person because this is the same standard by which he judges the world.

“Maybe a different set of laws and morals for the elect than for the non-elect?” Not at all. Again, what it appears you are doing is taking one-kingdom critiques of certain 2k representatives (such as van Drunen) and applying them to all 2kers everywhere. This is an uncareful way to approach these issues.

Everything else in that paragraph has no applicability to me so I’m not sure where you got it.

“You didn’t have to bring up neutrality, it’s implicit in the structure of two-kingdom thought.” No its not. 2kingdom thinking is a broad category. Again, you are taking something you know about some proponents of it, and assuming all 2kers agree.

“As for values, problem isn’t that I am mixing categories or blurring words, it’s that you have disconnected the idea of “value” from ethics and morality. To avoid confusion here, let’s keep our sights set on ethics and morality.” This one is funny, I claimed you were confusing categories because you were forcing ethics and morality into an area where I wasn’t and then you respond by saying both that you weren’t mixing categories but we were going to focus on ethics. Lol! Anyways, philosophically only the Christian has proper grounds for ethics. How many times do I have to say this? But I don’t care what grounds the nonChristian bases his argument for liberty.

You one-kingdomers suffer the same intellectual mistake as van drunen and others of the more popular 2k camp, which is ironic. Your mistake is that you assume that if there are 2 kingdoms (one with just the elect, and the other with all creation), there must be two codes of ethics, two epistemological standards, etc. The van drunenites agree with this, and embrace it. Your camp agrees with this, and therefore rejects 2 kingdoms. I am saying (http://reformedlibertarian.... this is not a logical necessity. We can have one standard, but still have 2 kingdoms.

“Because there is no neutrality, there is no mutually agreeable definition of “liberty” between the Christian and the non-Christian.” Ah yes! You must be a Van Tillian. This is nonsense. The definition of liberty in this sense is “a lack of coercion against the property rights of the individual.” You don’t have to be a Christian to have a certain definition! (Though you have to have a Christian framework to justify the proposition as truth). That’s literally the meaning of nonsense. Hence why I prefer my presupposistionalism in the Clarkian variety, not Van Til/Bahnsen.

On the Benedict option, consider this (http://blog.reformedliberta... and this (http://blog.reformedliberta... for my view.

In short, please don’t take popular versions of 2k (van drunen) and assume I agree with everything they say. They are right sometimes and on some things, but I have my differences.

Re: Four Months of Silence and a Thought on Two Kingdoms

Jared Leonard — Thu, 15 Jun 2017 19:25:29 -0000

I assumed you would acknowledge Jesus as Lord of all; it’s one of those stable and staple Reformed propositions, regardless of what track of Reformed theology you find yourself riding in.

I don’t believe I’ve misunderstood you at all. Repeatedly in this response you get at what I see are the two main points of the OP: 1) there is a sharp divide between the secular and the religious and 2) the religious can work with the secular to promote/establish liberty. The first point establishes some philosophical DMZ between the Christian and the non-Christian thus making the second point a possible activity. In my initial response, I pushed back on both points: 1) there is no DMZ (i.e., no neutrality, no non-religiosity) and 2) while the Christian and the non-Christian can work together, it’s going to be (and historically as been) a hot mess. Actually, it’s going to result in a culture that is not too dissimilar from what we currently live in because the non-Christian is going to keep pushing and pulling the Christian farther and farther away from Christianity. Now we have a large swath of Christians who have no qualms at all about voting for, and/or continuing to support, someone like Donald Trump. So, again, I don’t believe I have misunderstood you, nor have I brought in assumptions about you based on the way someone else might argue against another someone else who maybe sort of has some similar views to you. Nevertheless, I will apologize if you feel that I have been unfair in this regard.

Moving on, the definition you give for “non-religious” assumes the existence of two kingdoms. Namely, you are assuming the existence of a “temporary kingdom”, one separate from God’s kingdom (the only one that actually exists). But the “kingdom of heaven” includes earth within its boundaries; this is the import of both the Great Commission and the statement “Jesus is Lord of all.” Near the end of your response you say “but [Jesus] is king in a unique way over the elect.” And he’s what, just a non-unique king over the non-elect? Perhaps he has different expectations of the non-elect than he does for the elect? Maybe a different set of laws and morals for the elect than for the non-elect? No, we one-kingdom folks know 2k peeps believe Jesus is Lord of both kingdoms. We just can’t figure out why you think the rules are different for each kingdom given the immutability of the king. Two-kingdom thinking here seems to me to be basically just an extremely high-order variant of Gnosticism where the Church/elect/religion is the “true truth” and, beyond that, nothing else really matters because, as you seem to believe, the rest of it is just temporary and disparate.

Oddly enough, though, your original post explicitly states that “Christianity certainly affects the way we live in the here and now, for all action starts in the mind.” This isn’t dominionism or theonomy speaking (because you deny them both), it’s you (and, I believe, also the Bible). However, the logical extrapolation of this is that Christianity and the body of believers develop a distinct culture and, as such, will have a distinct impact or influence on government and politics. Maybe we need some further clarification on what you mean by “social realm” and “political realm.” If believers are to exist into eternity, then there will always be a social realm as we continue to create, build, and maintain relationships with one another. On the political side, Jesus does not cease to be King after the final judgement, or if he does then the crown is merely passed back to the Father. The point here is that the continued existence of a kingdom requires the continued existence of government. And the existence of government requires the existence of politics. So, I’m afraid I will have to disagree with your supposition that the social and political realms are temporary; there does not appear to be any biblical or theological grounds for it. I’m fine with agreeing to disagree here, it’s not critical to my argument against two-kingdom thought.

You didn’t have to bring up neutrality, it’s implicit in the structure of two-kingdom thought. The fact that you are, in this response, explicitly confirming your belief that there are neutral activities is a verification of my assessment. I would like to point out that eating a sandwich is not a neutral activity precisely because it is an activity engaged upon by spiritual/moral beings. I would argue that “eating in itself” is a good (and necessary) activity. The various instantiations of eating will either agree or disagree with that inherent goodness. Again, bringing back your point that “all action starts in the mind”, and as all minds are either oriented towards righteousness (though mercy, grace, and faith) or oriented towards unrighteousness (through being “naturally” dead in sin), so the eating of a sandwich is either a righteous act or an unrighteous one depending on the individual’s relationship with God. I would grant that there are more factors to consider and a more complex discussion could be had; the goal here is to further establish the fact that there is no neutrality when it comes to human activities and endeavors. Even the most seemingly mundane or routine things have a spiritual/religious dimension, whether we are cognitively aware of it or not.

As for values, problem isn’t that I am mixing categories or blurring words, it’s that you have disconnected the idea of “value” from ethics and morality. To avoid confusion here, let’s keep our sights set on ethics and morality. You say there is a basis for it and I, of course, agree. But the leftist doesn’t agree, or if he agrees he does not agree about what that basis is. You say a value is “just something that is consistent with what I like.” Is your valuing of “normalcy and constants” in your culture simply that you value them? Do “normalcy” and “constancy” have no ethical or moral moorings? If they don’t, then what’s your beef with the leftist who wants a variegated big government in his culture? If they do, then on what grounds do you attempt to establish your values instead of his? It can’t be “Christian” grounds because, in your view, that’s a different kingdom; there is, as you say, “a sharp distinction between the secular and the religious” so bringing your religious convictions to the idea marketplace is not permitted. Whenever you do so you are, as it were, jumping the shark.

You go on to say that you don’t care how non-Christians argue for liberty, and that’s your point. I grant this, and it is the point I am pushing against. Because there is no neutrality, there is no mutually agreeable definition of “liberty” between the Christian and the non-Christian. This means the “liberty” that you want and the “liberty” that a non-Christian wants are fundamentally different. So are the “normalcy” and “constants” you like for culture to have. In other words, the social/cultural/political outworking of “liberty” (or “normalcy”, or “constants”) will look different when executed by Christians than it does when executed by non-Christians. Remember, Christianity affects how you live. You say you know the basis of liberty is in a Christian worldview, but, as I noted in the previous paragraph, you’re already (propositionally) committed to a sharp distinction between the secular and the religious. It must not be much of a commitment if you’re expecting to be able to collaborate with the secular in establishing liberty; presumably it is your (ironically) Christianized version of liberty that you would like established.

I’ve not turned your piece into anything other than it is and, yes, I see your point(s) quite clearly. You believe there is some common (i.e. some neutral, non-religious, secular, etc.) discussion area where you and the non-Christians can rah-rah for liberty. Once again, this is the failure point of two-kingdom thinking. You say “The point of my claim was that we have more natural allies for political liberty with libertarians than with other members of the kingdom of heaven.” If those libertarians are Christian, perhaps, then sure. Otherwise the religious and the secular will continue talking past each other or the Church will made ineffectual via assimilation. Both of these things are happening in America. And the two-kingdom response? Well, it looks something like the Benedict Option which, it turns out, is just a speeding up of the irrelevancy of the Church. Salt isn’t effective as long as it remains in the shaker, nor is light effective as long as it remains behind closed doors.

Re: Four Months of Silence and a Thought on Two Kingdoms

Brandon Adams — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:25:11 -0000

Jared, out of curiosity, have you read anything else on this site related to two kingdom theology? Or is this the only thing?

Re: Four Months of Silence and a Thought on Two Kingdoms

C.Jay Engel — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 19:15:25 -0000

“And is Jesus not Lord of all?” Of course. One-Kingdom folks always ask this as if 2kers don’t believe it.

What is meant by “non-religious” in this context simply means it per se doesn’t advance the kingdom of heaven as it is temporary and unrelated to eternal concerns. There’s no doubt that theres some spiritual element to things, or at least activities can have spiritual ramifications and relations, but there are some things, by definition, which are not part of the kingdom of heaven and so are relegated to the temporary kingdom. Or the City of Man, to use Augustine’s phrase.

The gospel does not require a social and political shift— thats dominionism speaking. The gospel is strictly related to how the individual elect can be saved from the consequences of sin. The social and political realm is temporary and will be destroyed by God upon his final judgement. In short you are merely asserting one-kingdom theology but I disagree with all your assertions.

Of course there are neutral activities. Eating a sandwich is in itself neither good nor evil. It depends on the circumstances. And besides, I never even brought up “neutrality.” You did. And whether social/political/culture are neutral depends on definitions and how we are using the word neutral.

A value is just something that is consistent with what I like. I like normalcy and constants in my culture and therefore don’t like rebellions and leftist uproars. There’s no basis for a value except that I value it. Unless you’re talking about ethics and morality, in which case there is a basis, of course. So again, you’re mixing categories and blurring words around.

I dont care how nonChristians argue for liberty, which was my point. I just want liberty. You say that they can’t find an objective foundation. Perhaps that is so. But one of the things you need to understand about 2kers is that we simply don’t care. I know the basis for liberty is in a christian worldview, but if a non-Christian doesn’t use that basis and therefore has none, I don’t care all that much. I just want liberty and to be left alone and all that.

You’ve turned my piece into a claim that non-christians have no basis for rationality, in good Bahnsenite fashion. But I’m not even arguing with that. Im simply saying that political liberty is simply something I prefer in the here and now and so I’ll make allies with those who promote liberty on political issues, even though they aren’t citizens of the kingdom of heaven. You see my point?

I think you are a bit confused about things, in reading your final paragraph. “How on God’s green earth is this a justification for believing there are two kingdoms?” Well, I didn’t use that for justification for two kingdoms so…. The point of my claim was that we have more natural allies for political liberty with libertarians than with other members of the kingdom of heaven.

“Two-kingdom theology fails because even if there were two kingdoms Jesus would be king of both.” Yeah he is king of both. The way we say it on the site is “Jesus is Lord of both kingdoms, but he is king in a unique way over the elect.” Which you have to believe unless you are a universalist.

I think you largely misunderstood my piece though and brought in all kinds of assumptions about me based on the way one-kingdomers will argue against someone like Van Drunen. Which is unfair to me.

Re: Four Months of Silence and a Thought on Two Kingdoms

Jared Leonard — Mon, 12 Jun 2017 18:58:31 -0000

There’s a reason so-called theonomists and neo-Kuyperians can’t stand DG Hart: it’s because his theology is screwed on all catawampus, at least as it relates to what others call the public sphere.

You say “We are citizens along with other Christians in the heavenly kingdom, but we are also citizens along with Christians and non-Christians in the earthly kingdom.” And is Jesus not Lord of all? Was not “all authority in heaven and on earth” given to Jesus after his resurrection? Also, what is a “non-religious” end? You seem to indicate that growing wealth, protecting culture, and general enjoyment of many types of activities are examples of non-religious ends, but this proposes an unsubstantiated assumption. Everything already has a spiritual element, if only for the simple fact that it all happens under the direction of God’s will. We can narrow that consideration down by limiting “everything” to anything involving humans but, again, here everything has a spiritual element because it is being enacted upon by creatures made in God’s image. Every single facet of human experience is religious, from the low-order “natural” functions of the body to the high-order of intentional functions of corporate worship.

Christianity is *necessarily* a tool for cultural and political ends because the goal, the telos, is the final redemption of all creation; the doing-away with of sin. The very nature and effect of the gospel requires a social, cultural, and political shift from unrighteousness towards righteousness. Jesus isn’t just King over the Church. It isn’t only Christians that will take to their knees in the end; it’s presidents, chancellors, kings, princes, priests, and prime ministers. Why do you think Jesus teaches us to pray, “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”? Because he wanted to establish a discrete, invisible, non-world-affecting kingdom? The unsubstantiated assumption I mentioned above is this: humans can engage in non-religious acts. The assumption is that “secularism” and “non-religiosity” are tantamount to social/cultural/political neutrality. This is the straw that breaks two-kingdom theology.

What do “non-religious” cultural values and goals look like? On what basis are they established? You note some explicit examples: “the food we like, the sports we play, the neighborhoods we build, the cultural habits we are attracted to.” None of these are religiously neutral endeavors. This can be easily shown by asking a simple question: Why? Not “why do we like such-and-such”, but “why do we engage in such-and-such?” What’s the purpose? When you can provide no objective foundation for purpose you open the floodgates of relativity. I can support free markets because they seem to work pretty good for lions in the Sahara. Or I can oppose free markets because look how productive insect colonies are! And you can’t reason with me on the grounds of Christianity, or rationality because, well, separate kingdoms and all. Your rationality is clearly a byproduct of holding a Christian worldview and, thus, is not suitable for making formative suggestions for how the “secular” kingdom should operate.

Here in the U.S. we have the increasingly popular “value” of gender fluidity. We have the increasingly popular “value” of tolerance-unless-you-disagree-with-us-in-our-rainbow-box-of-diversity. We have the increasingly popular “value” of “democratic socialism”. These are all values pushed by secularism, pursued and postured as non-religious, and aimed to maximize the growth of wealth for everyone. Aimed to protect a culture of “love” and “acceptance.” Aimed to expand the enjoyment of many types of activities. And you have the gall to push back against these values? On what grounds? On the grounds of your citizenship in a wholly disparate kingdom? Because, according to your worldview (which was established and shaped in a completely different kingdom), these values are not healthy for society? Well, I hope that works out for you. Oh, you are pushing back on the “non-religious grounds” of merely a different opinion, formulated apart from your Christianity? We have to make sure your ideas and opinions about how the “secular” kingdom operates aren’t being colored by your Christianity, you know. We wouldn’t want any of that rational discrimination and bigoted thinking to influence you in any sort of externally meaningful capacity…

Of course it is a “matter of plain fact that there are non-Calvinists, non-Protestants, non-Christians, who hold the same conclusions regarding the free market.” How on God’s green earth is this a justification for believing there are two kingdoms? I know atheists who are far more compassionate than some Christians, so obviously a Christian faith is not needed in order to establish a culture of peace and love (after all, that is the natural inclination of man…), right? You say Christianity certainly affects the way we live in the here and now, but you deny the power of that affection. If Christians live differently, then the culture formed by that living will be different. If the culture is different, then the government established by that culture will be different; culture and government (and politics) are *downstream* of religion. This means questions of political freedom are Christian because they concern salvation and protection from bondage and tyranny, which is not limited to the elect. Pro-liberty secularists are just as much of a fraud as anti-liberty religionists; they both need repentance. They both need to humbly bow in the presence of the one true King who is Lord over heaven and earth. Two-kingdom theology fails because even if there were two kingdoms Jesus would be king of both.

Re: Natural Law: Greek or Hebrew?

Brandon Adams — Mon, 27 Mar 2017 11:03:35 -0000

John Cassian (360-435) said

God at man's creation implanted in him naturally complete knowledge of the law, and if this had been kept by man, as at the beginning, according to the Lord's purposes, there would not have been any need for another law to be given, which He afterwards proclaimed in writing: for it were superfluous for an external remedy to be offered, where an internal one was still implanted and vigorous. But since this had been, as we have said, utterly corrupted by freedom and the opportunity of sinning, the severe restrictions of the law of Moses were added as the executor and vindicator of this (earlier law) and to use the expressions of Scripture, as its helper, that through fear of immediate punishment men might be kept from altogether losing the good of natural knowledge, according to the word of the prophet who says "He gave the law to help them:"476 and it is also described by the Apostle as having been given as a schoolmaster477 to little children, as it instructs and guards them to prevent them from departing through sheer forgetfulness from the teaching in which they had been instructed by the light of nature: for that the complete knowledge of the law was implanted in man at his first creation, is clearly proved from this; viz., that we know that before the law, aye, and even before the flood, all holy men observed the commands of the law without having the letter to read. For how could Abel, without the command of the law, have known that he ought to offer to God a sacrifice of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof,478 unless he had been taught by the law which was naturally implanted in him? How could Noah have distinguished what animals were clean and what were unclean,479 when the commandment of the law had not yet made a distinction, unless he had been taught by a natural knowledge? Whence did Enoch learn how to "walk with God,"480 having never acquired any light of the law from another? Where had Shem and Japheth read "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father," so that they went backwards and covered the shame of their father?481 How was Abraham taught to abstain from the spoils of the enemy which were offered to him, that he might not receive any recompense for his toil, or to pay to the priest Melchizedec the tithes which are ordered by the law of Moses?482 How was it too that the same Abraham and Lot also humbly offered to passers by and strangers offices of kindness and the washing of their feet, while yet the Evangelic command had not shone forth?483 Whence did Job obtain such earnestness of faith, such purity of chastity, such knowledge of humility, gentleness, pity and kindness, as we now see shown not even by those who know the gospels by heart? Which of the saints do we read of as not having observed some commandment of the law before the giving of the law? Which of them failed to keep this: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord?"484 Which of them did not fulfil this: "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, nor the likeness of anything which is in heaven or in the earth or under the earth?" Which of them did not observe this: "Honour thy father and thy mother," or what follows in the Decalogue: "Thou shalt do no murder; Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not bear false witness; Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife,"485 and many other things besides, in which they anticipated the commands not only of the law but even of the gospel?

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/ca...

Re: Why PR2K?

Brandon Adams — Fri, 03 Mar 2017 10:54:15 -0000

Hi Jordan,

I was just re-reading this post today and saw your comment from a couple of years ago (wow time flies).

Yes, our redemption absolutely has physical, practical implications for all of life. The point of emphasizing the spiritual nature of the kingdom, however, is to distinguish it from Israel, which was not a spiritual kingdom.

I do not deny the dominion mandate: have children and subdue the earth. I do deny that the dominion mandate is to subdue and have dominion over other image bearers.

What you are missing from your Creation, Fall, Redemption, New Creation is the fact that eschatology preceded soteriology. Yes, we were created for a purpose in the garden. The purpose was to perfectly obey the law and to work and keep the garden to spread it across the whole world so that God would dwell throughout the whole world and we could enter the Sabbath rest - to be transformed into an immutable nature that could no longer sin. But Adam failed and cast us all into sin. The world is under a curse and any hope of entering a Sabbath or of spreading the garden throughout the world is gone. No, we do not seek to "heavenize" earth because we cannot. Only Christ can when he returns and establishes the new heavens and the new earth.

No, Christ's work is not to restore our pre-fall, imago-dei purpose (Adam's purpose). Christ's work was to fulfill Adam's purpose, not to put us back in Adam's shoes.

I recommend this book http://www.rbap.net/our-boo...

Re: Anarchism, Minarchism, and the Libertarian Label

Libertymike — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 18:19:26 -0000

Well done, Jay.

You may know by now, but Bionic Mosquito has given you a big plug on his blog, today, March 2, 2017.