What makes someone "Radical 2k"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nate said:
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?
Click to expand...

Frame, John. Escondido Theology.
 
alexandermsmith said:
Hart's blog is full of glowing references to tv shows, films and other worldly culture. It's not just one or two references but habitual. One of his heroes is Mencken. Just go through his blog it is all there. I might also have suggested reading the comments of his followers but that is grim reading.

I'm not saying that, for example, Clark is like that (though he's always talking about American Football) but Hart certainly is.

They're connected because people like Hart think Puritan/Scottish Christianity is subjective and unReformed. They rarely make references to writers from those periods and when they do often the references are unfavourable. Whereas someone like Clark is forever referencing the very early Reformers as if they are the pinnacle of Reformed thought. Clark will jump straight from the 16th century to the 20th. Other than Boston I honestly can't remember reading any engagement by him with Scottish divines.

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.
Click to expand...
What exactly do you mean by R2K? I didn’t think you meant what you are implying, which seems to be a Christian embrace of worldliness, almost to the point of being more comfortable in the world.

Are you a member of Free Reformed? There are probably some cultural distinctions at play that inform your critique. Ones that I probably won’t ever stop wrestling with. I would say my experience as a member of the NRC, occasional visitor of the Free Reformed Church, and now member of the OPC has sharpened my familiarity with various areas of distinctiveness and identity. And the more I learn about some of that the less I seem to truly know and understand.
 
Could you dumb that down for me? What door did Kline exactly open? Can you not be too technical as to lose me? And how does it link to R2K in a practical sense (and curiously how may Hart accidentally or purposely be promoting it)? This is related to republication also? How exactly?
PuritanCovenanter said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A.Joseph said:
What exactly do you mean by R2K? I didn’t think you meant what you are implying, which seems to be a Christian embrace of worldliness, almost to the point of being more comfortable in the world.

Are you a member of Free Reformed? There are probably some cultural distinctions at play that inform your critique. Ones that I probably won’t ever stop wrestling with. I would say my experience as a member of the NRC, occasional visitor of the Free Reformed Church, and now member of the OPC has sharpened my familiarity with various areas of distinctiveness and identity. And the more I learn about some of that the less I seem to truly know and understand.
Click to expand...
The revisionists are now the establishment, so if you want to read the authoritative biography of J Gresham Machen, by Stonehouse, you will see that he was not a libertarian.

I think Mr Smith is from Britain---The Free Reformed Churches are in Canada and the USA. The Free Reformed rejected kuyperianism and antinomianism that influenced the CRC and now most reformed churches. A good reference is Cornelis Pronk’s book “A Goodly Heritage: The Secession of 1834”
 
I think I remember a sic et non series on R2K and Law/Gospel in the some of the earlier Confessional Presbyterian issues too. That was a good rubric. Any interest in renewing that rubric, @NaphtaliPress?
 
SavedSinner said:
The revisionists are now the establishment, so if you want to read the authoritative biography of J Gresham Machen, by Stonehouse, you will see that he was not a libertarian.
Click to expand...
We should define "libertarian."

Machen's libertarianism, if it may be called that, is discernible his political "libertarian" views, that is to say his public defenses as a private citizen of policy that was quite against the grain of the more popular (even then) progressive sort of interpretation of State power. He opposed, for various reasons, laws against jaywalking, prayer in public schools, and the creation of a Federal Dept. of Education (and perhaps other things as well). He also took a fairly anti-war posture, both before and after his experience as a RedCross volunteer (right behind the frontlines) in France during WWI.

All those positions are aligned today with one peculiarly "libertarian" political/economic view, which is distinct from a distinctly more libertine view of "libertarianism" as popularized by Reason magazine or AynRandians; who also have political, warfare, and economic views. "Libertarianism" is diverse as opposed to doctrinaire and monolithic; as diverse as is "conservatism," or "liberalism," and the like.

Machen's views, then, on Christian liberty within a religious context are both distinguishable from his political mind, and also (as we might expect) at least somewhat consistent with them. Advocacy tends to latch on some aspect of a man's thought (who often lived in a very different time and clime from today), and claim him through-and-through for himself.

Machen was a man of his time, as we are men of ours. He may justly be classed as a "conservative" in certain religious matters of doctrine and life. He was also opposed to certain things that many of today's "conservatives" believe to be essential commitments of their general stance. People seem to think, also, that being "conservative" or "liberal" within one area of life demands alignment or consent to the label in other areas.

All conservatives aren't intrinsically opposed to change (some are), but some rather to the rate of change. Some conservatives believe some things shouldn't change at all, and that other things should change naturally. And, that some things should change as fast as feasible, so long as the particular problem demands it, and no greater harm results from undue haste.

The latter category describes the "conservative Reformation" of the 16th century. The aim was to get back to an older purity, recovering an ancient standard--which was a "conservative" ideal--but the papists treated all this activity as "liberal" and "radical." The Lutherans thought the Reformed generally went too far. The true radicals were the Anabaptists and others like them, along with doctrinal innovaters like the anti-Trinitarians.

So, was Machen a "conservative" or a "libertarian?" Yes. He was a champion of the faithful doctrine of the past, and sought to recover it for the church. And failing that, to preserve it among a remnant committed to Reformation Presbyterianism.

He was no antinomian, and believed in the moral (i.e. natural) law. He would not have been in favor of a state that paid no attention to sound laws benefiting the populace generally, not just Christians. He thought that if a city or a place had "blue laws" (Sunday restrictions), that was a good thing. He would vote to keep them if he could. But would he start a campaign to keep them, or bring them back; or support someone who was? That is not something we can tell, just from his favor of them in place; or from his theology.

Many USA conservatives today are down-the-line advocates of proactive military action (all in the name of "defense," of course). They'd prefer it was exercised by the POTUS they voted for, but in principle they aren't opposed to "foreign adventures," so long as there is some plausible justification, and some promise of a definable "victory." Machen, if we can project him out of his time into ours without substantive change of mind, would almost certainly be vociferously against these conservatives. He'd be a certain kind of "libertarian," or a certain kind of "conservative," depending on how those words are defined and what the opposition's own label is.

Many USA conservatives today think the public schools are justifiable (even if they don't like some or most of them); and that they'd be better off having formal prayer in them. Machen (again if we move him anachronistically) would stand opposed to the latter, and quite possibly the former. He had theological problems and Constitutional problems with the form and the matter. Here is a case of alignment of his notions of political and Christian liberty stances.
 
Nate said:
I think I remember a sic et non series on R2K and Law/Gospel in the some of the earlier Confessional Presbyterian issues too. That was a good rubric. Any interest in renewing that rubric, @NaphtaliPress?
Click to expand...
We introduced it as an occasional feature. I think we did another on exclusive psalmody. Both proved hard to manage I have to say. But if a subject and two temperate parties to engage proposed themselves, we might give a third go at it.
 
DGH's statement was not nuanced. The context of that lengthy thread did not disabuse anyone of the clear meaning: Nero did not violate God's law when he executed Christians who obeyed God rather than Nero. The only question is whether that statement is in line with confessional Reformed thought or even basic Christianity.
 
Nate said:
Have you reviewed this book, Jacob? I would be interested in your detailed take on the issue(s) too.
Click to expand...

I have not, though I can sort of expect what Frame will say. Frame will press the Lordship in all areas angle. Frame, however, is weak on historical distinctions and nuances when it comes to the 2 kingdoms debate. I don't think either side has a knock-out argument.
 
alexandermsmith said:
They're connected because people like Hart think Puritan/Scottish Christianity is subjective and unReformed. They rarely make references to writers from those periods and when they do often the references are unfavourable. Whereas someone like Clark is forever referencing the very early Reformers as if they are the pinnacle of Reformed thought. Clark will jump straight from the 16th century to the 20th. Other than Boston I honestly can't remember reading any engagement by him with Scottish divines.
Click to expand...
If you glance through the Heidelblog you will see many quotations from Turretin, Witsius, and Owen, all 17th century figures. Clark hardly "jumps straight over" these periods. What about the fact that he has co-edited translations of Johannes Cocceius and JH Heidegger? A significant portion of his books and essays are devoted to Reformed Orthodoxy on some level. If he loves the "very early Reformers" so much, why does the Heidelblog have 4 posts on Martin Bucer a "very early reformer", compared to 10 on the later and much more obscure Amandus Polanus?

In terms of his view on the Puritans being too "subjective", I believe the first thing Dr. Clark would do, being the historian that he is, is argue that defining "puritanism" is incredibly difficult, and so it is hard to speak about the "puritans" in general terms.

In fact, he completely rejects the notion that "the puritans were unhealthily introspective" as a generalising caricature:

One of the assumptions embedded in writing about “the Puritans” on introspection and assurance is that British Reformed writers were isolated from the continent and that simply isn’t the case. The fathers of English Reformed theology, e.g., William Perkins and William Ames were well read in the European Reformed writers of their period and they, in turn, were widely read by the Europeans. They all wrote in Latin, the universal academic language of the period. Dutch Reformed theology was deeply influenced by Perkins and Ames and I don’t think it’s possible to read them fairly and denounce them as unduly introspective and we don’t read much about the unhealthy introspection of the Dutch Reformed writers of the same period. The British and European Reformed writers in the period had no idea that there was any great theological chasm between them—because there was none.
Click to expand...

I highly suggest you read the whole article.

Among others, Joel Beeke is listed by Clark as someone who "challenged decisively" the idea that "the puritans" were guilty of being overly-introspective. I mean, if RSC hates the puritans so much, what's he doing citing Joel Beeke, perhaps Puritan Fan Number One, as a good source on whether or not the puritans were too subjective?
 
I think this sums up Hart from Wikipedia,

“In a Wall Street Journal review of Hart's 2013 book, Calvinism: A History; Barton Swaim describes him as, "a cantankerous conservative, a stalwart Presbyterian and a talented polemicist with a delightfully perverse sense of humor."[4]

Stephen J. Nichols states that, like many other theologians, Hart is of the opinion that "theology, like nature, abhors a vacuum," in that theologizing is influenced by culture.[5]

Hart follows in the tradition of J. Gresham Machen (to whom he dedicated his book Secular Faith) in espousing an approach to politics that engages at the level of the individual rather than that of the church. Hart makes the observation that "[e]fforts to use Christianity for public or political ends fundamentally distort the Christian religion."[6] In Secular Faith Hart argues for the church to follow its mission by standing apart as a witness, suggesting that the nature of Christianity is "otherworldly", and criticizing those who "have tried to use their faith for political engagement".[7]
 
I've never thought that Clark was anti-experimental religion. (To my recollection though, he did defend Tullian Tchvidjian's teaching at some length, which is evidence of what someone (Jean?) posted earlier about possible problems with an extreme law-grace distinction and perhaps the fruit of seeing everything through the lens of justification rather than union with Christ. You don't have to agree with things like "final justification" to suspect that there are problems with that perspective.)

But with Hart, however, the charge that he rejects anti-experimental religion --and more specifically, largely rejects Puritan spirituality--is some mud that sticks. We've had several threads about this in the past. (To my recollection, Rev. Winzer largely agreed with this critique and said he preferred the "hart" of Psalm 42.) In his invective against pietism, does Hart throw genuine piety overboard too?

Hart appears to look askance at all revivals, including the First Great Awakening, and would prefer prayers to be read from a prayer book than to have to listen to Presbyterian ruling elders and others (including some ministers) pray who are not up to his standards. Read this and then tell me that he doesn't look at any kind of experimental religion with a jaundiced eye. This is what led Hart to admire Nevin and take his side over Hodge and company. It's also why some FV and NPP fans who were in Reformed churches 15 years ago were surprised when Hart denounced Wright et al since previously he had basically agreed that Reformed worship was "Baptist." (Perhaps it was his commitment to a "secular faith," which FV and NPP both reject, and his churchmanship as a whole that led him to side with what his doctrinal standards say rather than take his views to what some might term their "logical conclusion" and embrace paedocommunion.)

Hart is also wrong that there is rarely an adjustment for Baptists coming into Presbyterianism beyond the infant baptism issue. Has he not been in a Baptist church since his IFB days so many decades ago? I wonder. Does he not know that with the exception of extreme IFB congregations and perhaps churches where a 60 year old grandfather is a youngster, Baptist worship today (and perhaps for the past quarter century at least) more often resembles charismatic worship than anything else? Does he not know that many Baptists have probably never even sang from a hymnal and that many may never have even seen one? Typical OPC worship (which Hart says is "low church") is considered extremely formal by the vast majority of Baptists and evangelicals in general today, so much so that many would go once and would never return because of how "dead" it seems, and maybe even how "Catholic" it seems. In fairness, this article is about 20 years old. Regardless, the "Worship Wars" were already over by then in most Baptist churches, with the hymnals consigned to the dust bin, and the choir replaced by the "Praise Band." Most of the Baptist people for whom OPC worship wouldn't have been a huge adjustment even then would have been middle aged or older. (Just think of the words "I believe in the Holy Catholic Church" on the mouth of a typical Baptist.) I know that Hart would probably say that his article is 20 years old and that it doesn't invalidate his argument. But I do think it is evidence of a skewed perspective that may not recognize what "low church" means today.

I've been in dozens of Presbyterian congregations in the past 15 years. I've only been in one that was so "low church" that it didn't sing the doxology, say the creed, and generally resembled a Baptist church with the exception that they were still using hymnals, a non-Reformed one in their case.

The unique thing about Radical or Escondido 2k is that they (and Hart in particular) sometimes want to return to a more "High Church" or "pre-Puritan" spirituality of the Magisterial Reformers, (and laud Christendom in that sense, as Hart did in that article) yet they embrace a view of church and state that is totally opposed to Christendom and which no Reformed people before the late 18th Century would have embraced. Perhaps it is an overreaction to the Religious Right? I've got problems with prayer and Bible teaching in schools, etc., especially in today's climate, but wouldn't the USA be much more secular today (more resembling Europe) if the public schools hadn't been Protestant (in a generic sense) until the mid-20th Century? Part of the heat that Hart takes is because such a prospect doesn't seem all that undesirable for him. After all, he'd be rid of the Falwells and Robertsons of the world.

Reading R2k material (and perhaps Hart in particular) can leave you with the impression that Christianity is for home and church but doesn't have a whole lot of relevance elsewhere. This isn't without a grasp of some important truths, such as a critique of the idea that "All of life is worship" (almost always said by people who reject the RPW in any sense). But it can also lead to what I've termed a practical hyper-Calvinism, where you are eventually unable to speak into the wider culture, and maybe think it is relatively unimportant. Sharing your faith? Well that's the pastor's job. There is a lot of invective against worldview thinking. There are indeed problems with some of it. But R2k tends to leave you with the idea that the whole idea is wrongheaded.
 
The only thing I can observe with a degree of certainty is that Hart is skeptical of the religious right evangelicals in the way Machen was.

But there are other pitfalls of being theologically on point and forgoing (or deemphasizing) the experiential part (in a reformed not mainstream evangelical sense). I don’t know enough to imply that Hart does that and I have no reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt in these matters. To risk name dropping one more time, Dr. Lane Tipton, who is my ‘part-time’ pastor, is always emphasizing union with Christ and how we often suffer to be conformed to (and comfort in) Him and our true home. This may be expressed and ultimately look a little different than the puritans in some ways and not so much in others. I think if pressed Hart would and does embrace his union with Christ, probably even in a way he didn’t 10 to 20 years ago, doesn’t mean he will lose his personality, outside interests and critical edge but I’m sure he puts first things first especially as he gets closer to his heavenly home.
 
Last edited:
A.Joseph said:
The only thing I can observe with a degree of certainty is that Hart is skeptical of the religious right evangelicals in the way Machen was.

But there are other pitfalls of being theologically on point and forgoing (or deemphasizing) the experiential part (in a reformed not mainstream evangelical sense). I don’t know enough to imply that Hart does that and I have no reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt in these matters. To risk name dropping one more time, Dr. Lane Tipton, who is my ‘part-time’ pastor, is always emphasizing union with Christ and how we often suffer to be conformed and comfort in Him and our true home. This may be expressed and ultimately look a little different than the puritans in some ways and not so much in others. I think if pressed Hart would and does embrace his union with Christ, probably even in a way he didn’t 10 to 20 years ago, doesn’t mean he will lose his personality, outside interests and critical edge but I’m sure he puts first things first especially as he gets closer to his heavenly home.
Click to expand...
AJ, have you read the 3 posts that Pilgrim refers to above?
 
Susan777 said:
AJ, have you read the 3 posts that Pilgrim refers to above?
Click to expand...
I have not.

I will add that if you want to measure Hart, you have to use Machen as your barometer. Was Machen a R2Ker? If so, in any form, what were his motivations/intent? I will, in turn, refer you to post #39 on this thread.

Also, It’s easy to see charges of theonomy/legalism being cast from one side and humanism(rather than the more acceptable theistic term/concept of natural law)/antinomianism from the other.
 
Last edited:
A.Joseph said:
I have not.

I will add that if you want to measure Hart, you have to use Machen as your barometer. Was Machen a R2Ker? If so, in any form, what were his motivations/intent? I will, in turn, refer you to post #39 on this thread.

Also, It’s easy to see charges of theonomy/legalism being cast from one side and humanism(rather than the more acceptable theistic term/concept of natural law)/antinomianism from the other.
Click to expand...
I’m really not following your thoughts AJ. I’m not interested in “measuring Hart” so much as getting a good understanding of his theology. I don’t need to run him through the lens of Machen (of blessed memory:cheers:). Hart writes in a public way and so I read his output. You should do this to be better informed. I don’t understand your last sentence at all.
 
Susan777 said:
I’m really not following your thoughts AJ. I’m not interested in “measuring Hart” so much as getting a good understanding of his theology. I don’t need to run him through the lens of Machen (of blessed memory:cheers:). Hart writes in a public way and so I read his output. You should do this to be better informed. I don’t understand your last sentence at all.
Click to expand...
I read one of the links and was touching on the charge that Hart is a R2Ker. I’m not sure that’s a sound conclusion. In what areas specifically do you think he’s lacking? I think his theology is what Machen espoused. I don’t think he advocates any changes in theology but he’s a realist regarding the affairs outside the church, which is to be expected with the revisions to the WCF and tolerance of different forms of religious expression including various Christian sects.
 
For the sake of your own sanity, never get involved in the comments section of the Old Life blog. Daryl Hart is a friend of mine, but if you start taking the posts and comments on the blog seriously you are run the risk of becoming as crazy as he is. :coffee:
 
One other thing that we need to flag up, which often gets overlooked, is that the libertarianism of some of the R2Kers on homosexual "marriage" (to be fair, the likes of R. Scott Clark would oppose the legalisation of homosexual "marriages"), contradicts the original intent of Westminster Confession 24.4.

In relation to incestuous marriages, the Confession states, "nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties." If that is true of incestuous marriages between persons of the opposite sex, how much more is it true of sodomite "marriages" between those of the same sex.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
For the sake of your own sanity, never get involved in the comments section of the Old Life blog. Daryl Hart is a friend of mine, but if you start taking the posts and comments on the blog seriously you are run the risk of becoming as crazy as he is. :coffee:
Click to expand...
Daniel, do you recognize any of the men and women shown on the masthead?
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
For the sake of your own sanity, never get involved in the comments section of the Old Life blog. Daryl Hart is a friend of mine, but if you start taking the posts and comments on the blog seriously you are run the risk of becoming as crazy as he is. :coffee:
Click to expand...

Great advice but those were from Greenbaggins. Does the general equity of your counsel still apply?
 
RWD said:
Great advice but those were from Greenbaggins. Does the general equity of your counsel still apply?
Click to expand...

It is a parallel case, so, yes, I suppose it does. I hasten to add, though, that I do not regard @greenbaggins as being as nuts as D. G. Hart ... or even as nuts at all. :lol:

One of the funniest moments of my Ph.D. studies was when I got a feedback sheet from my supervisor on a chapter that I had written. The first line of which read, "Citing D. G. Hart does not help your case." I enjoyed later telling Darryl about it in person. :stirpot:
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
It is a parallel case, so, yes, I suppose it does. I hasten to add, though, that I do not regard @greenbaggins as being as nuts as D. G. Hart ... or even as nuts at all. :lol:

One of the funniest moments of my Ph.D. studies was when I got a feedback sheet from my supervisor on a chapter that I had written. The first line of which read, "Citing D. G. Hart does not help your case." I enjoyed later telling Darryl about it in person. :stirpot:
Click to expand...

Stirring the pot indeed!

Point of clarification, Greenbaggins was a reference to the site from which the DGH quotes came. It wasn’t a reference to GB the man. :)
 
Susan777 said:
Daniel, do you recognize any of the men and women shown on the masthead?
Click to expand...

Do you mean of the blog? There was one guy smoking a cigarette when I checked it 5 minutes ago. I do not know who he is. I also do not get the obsession with smoking, though I have always hated the smell of cigarette smoke and the damage they do to people's health.

I did notice that DGH was doing a podcast of J. G. Machen with two PCI ministers that I know (one more so than the other).
 
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