The reason I chose to create this thread in this sub-forum rather than theonomy is because I am seeking a response from my two kingdom friends (particularly those who are Van Tillian in their understanding of the myth of neutrality and it's relation to the Lordship of Christ over all i.e. Apologetics etc...). I have been influenced by Greg Bahnsen quite a bit, and agree with much of what he has to say in regard to the Law of God as it is to be applied in the civil realm. With that in mind, I confess that I am no expert on the issues which divide 2k advocates and theonomists, which is why I have a question for those of the two-kingdom persuasion, who are committed to Van Tils apologetic methodology. I am thinking here of learned men such as James White and R. Scott Clark (the latter of whom I have seen here on the board). Why should we be accepting of the Lordship of Christ in the realm of apologetics, and yet deny His Lordship in the civil realm. I am thinking here of the famous quote from Cornelius Van Til where he says there is no alternative to theonomy or autonomy. Why be theonomic in your apologetic, and autonomous in your view of the civil magistrate by replacing Gods word with natural law?