Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is that a California joke?Surf and/or early skateboarding culture.
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.R2K would be people like D.G. Hart who advocate a total separation between the church and society in terms of the application of the Law of God. R2K argue that Christians shouldn't care about promoting morality and Christian values in the public square. But they don't merely take the view that the world, being the world, will always be corrupt and antithetical to the church but they often celebrate aspects of worldly culture, indulge in them and think there's a lot that can be learned from such culture. This is combined with a very condescending attitude towards those who would argue that Christians should separate themselves from the world (R2K believes the church and society in general are separate spheres but that the world has a lot of good stuff to offer) or those Christians who try to influence society. R2K are usually very antinomian.
Simple two kingdom theology- as I understand it- would be best exemplified by the Southern Presbyterian church, I think. The church, as an institution, is not to involve itself in civil matters but Christians should still be active members of the community.
I think that is a fair characterization. It’s my understanding (admittedly limited) that classical 2k theology bears little resemblance to what’s been formulated at Westminster West. For ex. Michael Horton felt he could support same-sex civil unions based on the love-your-neighbor principle, wanting what’s best for them. Whoa! To me, that’s radical.R2K would be people like D.G. Hart who advocate a total separation between the church and society in terms of the application of the Law of God. R2K argue that Christians shouldn't care about promoting morality and Christian values in the public square. But they don't merely take the view that the world, being the world, will always be corrupt and antithetical to the church but they often celebrate aspects of worldly culture, indulge in them and think there's a lot that can be learned from such culture. This is combined with a very condescending attitude towards those who would argue that Christians should separate themselves from the world (R2K believes the church and society in general are separate spheres but that the world has a lot of good stuff to offer) or those Christians who try to influence society. R2K are usually very antinomian.
Simple two kingdom theology- as I understand it- would be best exemplified by the Southern Presbyterian church, I think. The church, as an institution, is not to involve itself in civil matters but Christians should still be active members of the community.
That's regular 2K. People like the Puritans. Andrew Melville with his famous speech to the King. Calvin said some 2K-ish things.traditional two kingdom
R2K would be people like D.G. Hart who advocate a total separation between the church and society in terms of the application of the Law of God. R2K argue that Christians shouldn't care about promoting morality and Christian values in the public square. But they don't merely take the view that the world, being the world, will always be corrupt and antithetical to the church but they often celebrate aspects of worldly culture, indulge in them and think there's a lot that can be learned from such culture. This is combined with a very condescending attitude towards those who would argue that Christians should separate themselves from the world (R2K believes the church and society in general are separate spheres but that the world has a lot of good stuff to offer) or those Christians who try to influence society. R2K are usually very antinomian.
Simple two kingdom theology- as I understand it- would be best exemplified by the Southern Presbyterian church, I think. The church, as an institution, is not to involve itself in civil matters but Christians should still be active members of the community.
I think that is a fair characterization. It’s my understanding (admittedly limited) that classical 2k theology bears little resemblance to what’s been formulated at Westminster West. For ex. Michael Horton felt he could support same-sex civil unions based on the love-your-neighbor principle, wanting what’s best for them. Whoa! To me, that’s radical.
I do read DGH’s blog but a lot of it goes over my head. It’s like there’s some sort of insider knowledge being discussed that just leaves me baffled. I would like to know who those interesting looking people are who adorn his blog. I only recognize Machen.
I don’t know. I’m from the Great White North.Is that a California joke?
Regarding Hart... A mother of all reductios by Steve over at Triablogue.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/01/two-kingdom-fascism.html?m=1
I think DGH would say that, judged purely on the question of whether punishing sedition (which is what Christians were usually accused of) is within the scope of a ruler's authority, clearly this is "YES." Which is a question that may be considered apart from whether the Christian was in fact guilty of sedition as God's looks at it from heaven.“Nero did not violate God’s law if he executed Christians who obeyed God rather than man. If Paul continued to preach after the emperor said he may not, then Nero was doing what God ordained government to do.” D.G. HartAm I imagining things or did Hart just say that Nero cannot break God's law by obeying himself?
“Nero did not violate God’s law if he executed Christians who obeyed God rather than man. If Paul continued to preach after the emperor said he may not, then Nero was doing what God ordained government to do.” D.G. HartAm I imagining things or did Hart just say that Nero cannot break God's law by obeying himself?
There are 565 comments on that thread. The quote from DGH is about 1/4 of the way into them. That means that
1. There's the original post for context.https://oldlife.org/2017/01/04/is-donald-trump-mainstreaming-apostasy/
2. There's a history of posting for context.
3. There's a whole series of exchanges within the comments, many of which are soundbite, many which are talking over one another, many which are continuation of previous conversation (so, snatches of exchanges that extend cross-post and cross-comment-thread)
The critique offered by Triablogue is only applicable to itself. It isn't obliged, and it makes no systematic effort at any "interpretation" of DGH's thought. It exercises it's right to criticize one, isolated, comment-section remark (not even a blog-post, where an author might choose to preempt certain critiques). That's fine, if the whole free-for-all is reckoned just a standard internet snipe-fest.
(BTW, I read a lot of Triablogue, and it is a quite useful site, so when I say it may critique as it wills, I'm affirming their right to express any opinions however desired.)
If you read more of the comments, along with the blog post that inspired them (all 3yrs ago), and put it in the context of the whole blog with many posts, the reductionist and provocative tenor of the post becomes more understandable. DGH takes critique from friend and foe, and offers his own subtle qualifications.
DGH is a college prof, an "intellectual." He is used to stimulating discussion in a classroom setting, he's seldom satisfied with pat answers, and his blog reflects that style. He also writes papers and books, and those are more likely to have a different style of engagement altogether.
I think DGH would say that, judged purely on the question of whether punishing sedition (which is what Christians were usually accused of) is within the scope of a ruler's authority, clearly this is "YES." Which is a question that may be considered apart from whether the Christian was in fact guilty of sedition as God's looks at it from heaven.
In other words, was Nero culpable on either the human level or the ultimate for his repression? And if so, was that culpability mitigated at all by his ignorance, by his duty to laws in place, or by other limitations? Sweeping these questions aside by peremptory decision for the defendants (Christians) seems to DGH to completely ignore the "ministerial" role fulfilled by the Roman ruler, and NT statements about that rule from the mouth or pen of both Lord and Apostles.
You don't have to agree with DGH's final, nuanced position. But he raises legitimate questions. And the biggest noise against his position come from the party that insists that their position is "self-evidently true," and so anyone who faults it is of course in sin and rebellion. Natch.
Is "the" Christian position on human government ascertainable from a simple read of the NT (or also incorporating OT witness)? I think not. I don't even think there is ONE biblical position; and if there is a single best form for it worldwide and in every time, it isn't discernible purely by theoretical derivation from Scripture. It has to be tried historically and evaluated. That is to say: it is a matter of sanctified, biblical wisdom; and not divine prescription.
I have a blog that has dealt with Tullian and others concerning this stuff.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ividjian-depraved-christianity-antinomianism/
I use to go back and forth with DG at one time on his blog. I like the guy. I would be able to sit down, imbibe, and share of bowl of Black Cavendish with him. I think he is a good clean example of Radical 2K advocacy (or as some would call it Natural Law Two Kingdoms). Either way it is Klinianism run a muck. He has also been called out for his interpretation of Machen. He interprets everything through the lens of his radical dichotomous views of Law and Grace which lead to his Radical 2 Kingdom conclusions. But I like the guy. He is fun.
Would Tullian Tchividjian be considered R2K, particularly in making a cleft between grace and law? (Wish I could put that in the past tense, but he appears to be in the pulpit again.)
Has anyone published a direct critique of R2K, or at least the WSC flavor of R2K?
Elam and Van Kooten published a critique of Klinean Republication with their Merit and Moses. Has anyone done the same for R2K and/or what is being called here the WSC dichotomisation of law and gospel?
If I recall correctly, on an episode of Vos Group, Two Kingdoms came up. I believe Dr. Tipton was appreciative of some 2K stuff, but he definitely wasn't as negative as a lot of this thread has been. That's rather confusing to me.My pastor, Lane Tipton, would be regular for sure.
This is a pretty serious accusation. Would you like to back it up in any way?and a love for a lot of the things the world has to offer
In what way are these connected? I also think there is a difference between critiquing say modern evangelical pietism and critiquing the puritans, which seems to be a far more common theme in Michael Horton or RSC's works.Their disdain for Puritan/Scottish experimental Christianity goes hand in hand with their views on these other matters.
Has anyone published a direct critique of R2K, or at least the WSC flavor of R2K?
Elam and Van Kooten published a critique of Klinean Republication with their Merit and Moses. Has anyone done the same for R2K and/or what is being called here the WSC dichotomisation of law and gospel?
If I recall correctly, on an episode of Vos Group, Two Kingdoms came up. I believe Dr. Tipton was appreciative of some 2K stuff, but he definitely wasn't as negative as a lot of this thread has been. That's rather confusing to me.
This is a pretty serious accusation. Would you like to back it up in any way?
In what way are these connected? I also think there is a difference between critiquing say modern evangelical pietism and critiquing the puritans, which seems to be a far more common theme in Michael Horton or RSC's works.
This is slanderous (typical) nonsense.It's an attitude which permeates them: anti-experimental religion (which they put under the banner of pietism) and a very lenient attitude to engagement with the world by Christians.