What makes someone "Radical 2k"?

[Stephen L Smith]

I hasten to add, though, that I do not regard @greenbaggins as being as nuts as D. G. Hart

You might have to do penance for a comment like that. But Lane has assured me if you quote Vos plenty of times, he will 'credit' it to your sanctification

 

[RamistThomist]

Hart has one of the funnier blogs and twitter accounts.

 

[jwright82]

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.
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)
​

https://oldlife.org/2017/01/04/is-donald-trump-mainstreaming-apostasy/

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 agree. All too often I come across people who are frustrated at the state or sections of the church who see complex ethical, political, issues as simple. When they are complex. But I think all can agree that Lee and Mysty Irons are R2K. How much more do we we dial it back till we get to acceptable2 Kingdom thinking? Not all the way back to affirming things they wouldn't affirm, just to get them cause us or you. But to where someone could disagree with them and still call them ok?

 

[Susan777]

I agree. All too often I come across people who are frustrated at the state or sections of the church who see complex ethical, political, issues as simple. When they are complex. But I think all can agree that Lee and Mysty Irons are R2K. How much more do we we dial it back till we get to acceptable2 Kingdom thinking? Not all the way back to affirming things they wouldn't affirm, just to get them cause us or you. But to where someone could disagree with them and still call them ok?

Jamey, making a Reformed case for same sex civil unions sounds like something no Puritan would have done, right?

 

[jwright82]

Jamey, making a Reformed case for same sex civil unions sounds like something no Puritan would have done, right?

Oh yes, no Puritan would have done that. But I don't know the reference from Michael Horton, the Irons yes I've read their statement. But my curiosity would be this, in what context did he make that statement? If he did. BTW I don't think there is a Reformed argument for same sex whatever. Or biblical for that matter. Natural law pretty much deals with that, procreation is a natural part of life and ought to be considered in any conversation of such.
I think the great strength of 2kingdom view is that it is realistic first and idealistic second.

 

[Susan777]

Oh yes, no Puritan would have done that. But I don't know the reference from Michael Horton, the Irons yes I've read their statement. But my curiosity would be this, in what context did he make that statement? If he did. BTW I don't think there is a Reformed argument for same sex whatever. Or biblical for that matter. Natural law pretty much deals with that, procreation is a natural part of life and ought to be considered in any conversation of such.
I think the great strength of 2kingdom view is that it is realistic first and idealistic second.

Here is the excerpt:
The challenge there is that two Christians who hold the same beliefs about marriage as Christians may appeal to neighbor-love to support or to oppose legalization of same-sex marriage.

On one hand, it may be said that if we can no longer say that “Judeo-Christian” ethics are part of our shared worldview as a republic, then the ban seems arbitrary. Why isn’t there a campaign being waged to ban providing legal benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples? Or to make divorce more difficult? It just seems more symbolic than anything else: it looks like our last-gasp effort to enforce our own private morality on the public. On the other hand, we might argue that every civilization at its height, regardless of religion, has not only privileged marriage of one man and one woman but has outlawed alternative arrangements. Same-sex marriage means adoption, which subjects other human beings to a parental relationship that they did not choose for themselves. Are we loving our LGBT neighbors—or their adopted children—or the wider society of neighbors by accommodating a move that will further destroy the fabric of society?



I take the second view, but I recognize the former as wrestling as much as I’m trying to with the neighbor-love question. Legal benefits (“partnerships”) at least allowed a distinction between a contractual relationship and the covenant of marriage. However, the only improvement that “marriage” brings is social approval—treating homosexaul and heterosexual unions as equal. Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.

 

[Susan777]

Oh yes, no Puritan would have done that. But I don't know the reference from Michael Horton, the Irons yes I've read their statement. But my curiosity would be this, in what context did he make that statement? If he did. BTW I don't think there is a Reformed argument for same sex whatever. Or biblical for that matter. Natural law pretty much deals with that, procreation is a natural part of life and ought to be considered in any conversation of such.
I think the great strength of 2kingdom view is that it is realistic first and idealistic second.

https://www.whitehorseinn.org/2012/05/should-we-oppose-same-sex-marriage/

 

[jwright82]

The challenge there is that two Christians who hold the same beliefs about marriage as Christians may appeal to neighbor-love to support or to oppose legalization of same-sex marriage.

Here is an excerpt from his article:

On one hand, it may be said that if we can no longer say that “Judeo-Christian” ethics are part of our shared worldview as a republic, then the ban seems arbitrary. Why isn’t there a campaign being waged to ban providing legal benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples? Or to make divorce more difficult? It just seems more symbolic than anything else: it looks like our last-gasp effort to enforce our own private morality on the public. On the other hand, we might argue that every civilization at its height, regardless of religion, has not only privileged marriage of one man and one woman but has outlawed alternative arrangements. Same-sex marriage means adoption, which subjects other human beings to a parental relationship that they did not choose for themselves. Are we loving our LGBT neighbors—or their adopted children—or the wider society of neighbors by accommodating a move that will further destroy the fabric of society?



I take the second view, but I recognize the former as wrestling as much as I’m trying to with the neighbor-love question. Legal benefits (“partnerships”) at least allowed a distinction between a contractual relationship and the covenant of marriage. However, the only improvement that “marriage” brings is social approval—treating homosexaul and heterosexual unions as equal. Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.

I haven't thought much of it to be honest, before anyone jumps on me for my practical slant I have been wrestling with other problems. It is complicated for sure. What does legal protection do for society vs what we know to be true about marriage? The psychological state of these children must be confusing, to say the least. All in all its complicated. Marriage of heterosexual couples brings spiritual approval.

 

[jwright82]

https://www.whitehorseinn.org/2012/05/should-we-oppose-same-sex-marriage/

I read the article and agree with him, at the end of the day (read the conclusion) he favors heterosexual marriage, as do I, as being in line with natural law. It's not as simple as a "though shall or shall not" ethic but it recognizes the compmplexity of the situation. I don't even think he got into the complexity of it.

 

[jwright82]

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).

I don't know, I smoke but not at church. Not because I think it's wrong but I don't want to flaunt it in anyone's face. I love horror movies but I don't tell people at church because people have problems with it, and personally I'm too selfish to deal with the lecture. It's a blog so no one has to watch it but why smoke that much right in everyone's face? Being considerate is both scriptual and NL.

 

[jwright82]

One thing that makes a person R2K is their radical dichotomous view of Law and grace. They make things so dichotomous that Law and Grace lose their biblical fullness. Another thing they do is remove the full responsibility and accountability to both tables of the Law for the civil kingdom based upon how they define Natural Law.

Okay. I agree the two tables of the law but isn't there a difference between thinking it is wrong (R2k?) And thinking it might not work out well, and shouldn't be tried right now until things change (neo-2K, myself)?

 

[alexandermsmith]

This is slanderous (typical) nonsense.

This is actually libellous, lol.

Clark's extensive quotations favorably reference a particular stream of Reformed thought, both from the Continent and the Isles, which extend into the 17th and 18th centuries. In other words, his is an argument of continuity, and one that does not aim at so broad an embrace as some others might like. Others who, in their own right, often draw such a line demarcating their full approval themselves, only further afield.

In addition, Clark has numerous favorable references to the Marrow of Modern Divinity, which was opposed around the time it was republished (later annotated by Boston) as too experimental (among other things) by the legalist party. He has favorably quoted Seceders such as Ralph & Ebenezer Erskine.

Legalists and moralists don't have title to experimental religion. Neither do antinominans. One of the chief questions is: what determines true piety? Clark et al argue for a particular form of Reformed piety, not Pietism. The form they argue in favor of is distinct from that which is influenced by revivalism and by certain streams of introspective Puritanism (which is a label, like "Evangelicalism" so broad as ordinarily to demand qualification of some kind).

Did I not say that Clark had referenced Boston? Indeed I did. Clearly not paying attention to what I wrote. Anyone who has actually spent time reading the blogs of these men will know that what I say is true. They often criticse Edwards and Hart has even criticised M'Cheyne for his religiosity.

For his part, Hart is a defender of Christian liberty in an era that is both secularly licentious and reactionarily religiously moralist (outside the sphere where the church is just like the world). That is something he should not have to apologize for.

His definition of Christian liberty is wrong, unconfessional and most importantly unBiblical. Clearly you are either blind to what is written on his blog or you agree with it. Either way, such a position you have taken is indefensible. I can only speculate as to why you are so eager to defend Hart but be assured, your defence of him is unwise (to say the least).

 

[alexandermsmith]

Wow. When Paul used that language in his epistles, it was directed at those who had abandoned the gospel. I disagree with the supposed "R" 2K guys on many things, but I would never go that far.

Either what I've said is true or not true. If it's not true explain why. If it is true then I have merely stated facts. Either way please refrain from such loaded and rather hysterical reactions. It doesn't further the debate just heightens emotions and proves a distraction (which, of course, is usually the intended effect).

 

[alexandermsmith]

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:



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'm not going to engage in a game of "this post counters that post". His blog has been running for many years. I'm talking about his overall approach to Reformed theology. And Clark is nothing if not a sucker for Reformers with Latin names unpublished in English.

 

[alexandermsmith]

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.

Well I believe I have explained what I understand by it. I'm not arguing it is explicitly advocating the embrace of "wordliness" but that is usually the result of such an approach. It basically argues there are two "sets of rules": one for the church and one for the state/culture and that, in practice, Christians can quite legitimately live according to these two different sets of rules in their respective realms. This is because, they would argue, these two speheres being separate it is not the job of the church or Christians to "reform" the world morally because only regeneration is transformative. Now R2K people (and people in this thread it would appear) would argue that this doesn't result in worldliness in the Christian because the things outwith the church (i.e. of the world) embraced by R2K are lawful due to (their redefinition of) Christian liberty. To others (like myself) there is a contradiction because the things being embraced are not lawful for Christians and the view they are is very modern.

I'm not in the Free Reformed, no.

 

[alexandermsmith]

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]

It's hard to stand apart as a witness when you constantly reference The Wire as an insightful meditation on the human condition. I'll stick with the Bible.

 

[alexandermsmith]

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.

I'm glad you mentioned union with Christ. For a while Hart had a series on his blog called "Where's Waldo" (see link below) which was focused on "proving" that union with Christ is not a central Reformed doctrine and that it doesn't come into play until consideration of the Sacraments. He was often responding to those he called the "obedience boys" (people who believe that regeneration results in godliness in the life of the believer). Instead Hart would focus on the forensic aspect of salvation. Of course that is very important. But considering Hart's writing as a whole his campaign against viewing union as important in salvation resulted in an overemphasis of the forensic and a dismissing of the necessity of evidence of salvation in the life of the believer. And while he is correct to argue that the Reformed today have a very low view of the sacraments compared to the early Reformed, his view of the Lord's Supper isn't without his problems. His embrace of Nevin is very worrying.

https://oldlife.org/?s=Waldo

 

[RamistThomist]

Either what I've said is true or not true. If it's not true explain why. If it is true then I have merely stated facts. Either way please refrain from such loaded and rather hysterical reactions. It doesn't further the debate just heightens emotions and proves a distraction (which, of course, is usually the intended effect).

It's funny that you tell me to refrain from hysterical reactions when you admit that you use language that Paul used of those who apostasized.

 

[RamistThomist]

And Clark is nothing if not a sucker for Reformers with Latin names unpublished in English.

What does that have to do with anything? He can read Latin and points us to key Reformers who aren't yet in English. That's normally considered a positive.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I read the article and agree with him, at the end of the day (read the conclusion) he favors heterosexual marriage, as do I, as being in line with natural law. It's not as simple as a "though shall or shall not" ethic but it recognizes the compmplexity of the situation. I don't even think he got into the complexity of it.

Well here's the issue. It's not complex. The Bible couldn't be clearer on sodomy. It's rather disingenuous of Horton to ask why Christians aren't waging campaigns against other legal immoralities. At the time sodomite "marriage" wasn't legal, in fact many states explicitly prohibited it, but there was a campaign to make it so. That was the fight being fought at the time. We cannot campaign on every single issue. Why fight a battle that had already been lost when there was one which was actually being won? Legislatively, that is, until the Supreme Court interfered.

But Christians in the past did oppose no-fault divorce laws and the like. Just as they fought to keep prayer in schools and keep condoms out. But these battles were all eventually lost.

I can't for the life of me think of a good reason why a Christian would be interested in promoting anything other than Christian, Bibical morality. It is not the Christian's job to protect the "separation of church and state". He should focus on witnessing for Christ. Christians who set themselves up as Christian commentators should stick to promoting Christian doctrine and godliness and leave the secular stuff to the atheists.

 

[alexandermsmith]

It's funny that you tell me to refrain from hysterical reactions when you admit that you use language that Paul used of those who apostasized.

Well I don't think Hart is converted so I suppose my unintentional use of the same language was providential.

 

[alexandermsmith]

What does that have to do with anything? He can read Latin and points us to key Reformers who aren't yet in English. That's normally considered a positive.

Well I can't read Latin so it's of no help to me. It's just part and parcel of his approach: early scholastic is best, even better in Latin, and don't bother too much with the Puritans and Scottish.

 

[RamistThomist]

Well I can't read Latin so it's of no help to me. It's just part and parcel of his approach: early scholastic is best, even better in Latin, and don't bother too much with the Puritans and Scottish.

You do understand that when he translates from Latin, he is translating into English? For us, even. And to say he doesn't bother with English Puritans is utterly false, given his numerous quotations of Owen.

 

[alexandermsmith]

You do understand that when he translates from Latin, he is translating into English? For us, even. And to say he doesn't bother with English Puritans is utterly false, given his numerous quotations of Owen.

I must have missed those amongst all his talk about Nebraska football or his very regrettable promotion of (Lutheran) Ben Sasse.

 

[RamistThomist]

I must have missed those amongst all his talk about Nebraska football

I will help you out.
https://heidelblog.net/?s=owen&submit=Search

 

[BottleOfTears]

I'm not going to engage in a game of "this post counters that post". His blog has been running for many years. I'm talking about his overall approach to Reformed theology. And Clark is nothing if not a sucker for Reformers with Latin names unpublished in English.

It's not about "this post counters that post". You said that Dr Clark viewed the puritans as unhealthily introspective, and provided no evidence whatsoever for that accusation.

I linked an articled about that exact subject. Wherein Dr Clark states the exact opposite.

If we are talking RSC's "general approach" to Reformed theology, it seems we are both in agreement that he specialises in continental Reformed theologians from the late 16th century to the end of the 17th. Of course this negates your earlier statement that he ignores the 17th century.

Furthermore, he has said many times that there is little difference between the Continental and British Reformed in many areas. I mean read any of his stuff on Calvin and the Sabbath. He clearly shares this view in regards to piety and introspection as well, and being a historian is aware of the influence both ways via Perkins and Ames on the British side and Voetius and Wilhelmus à Brakel on the Continental.

Do you have any examples of the opposite?

Either what I've said is true or not true. If it's not true explain why. If it is true then I have merely stated facts. Either way please refrain from such loaded and rather hysterical reactions. It doesn't further the debate just heightens emotions and proves a distraction (which, of course, is usually the intended effect).

"If it is not true explain why."
I believe you are the one accusing brothers in Christ of being "worldly", the burden of proof is on your account, not on ours. I believe the reactions your accusation prompted are perfectly in line with the seriousness of the accusation. Personally, I would find the rest of your case far more compelling if it wasn't for such obviously false statements.

Why do you keep asking for evidence if you provide none yourself?

 

[EcclesiaDiscens.]

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.

I’ve noticed this trend amongst NAPARC too now and it really disturbs me. There’s even now “Reformed Anarchists” and the like which makes absolutely no sense in light of the confessional documents.

I’ve watched twitter conversations where R2Kers which are often libertarian/anarcho-capitalists explicitly deny that the magistrate should ban things like p0rnography, usury, bestiality, etc. because “magic uniforms don’t allow anyone to exert force on someone who isn’t harming anyone else and is exercising liberty.”

It’s a very Enlightenment understanding of liberty.


Amongst R2Kers there’s a weird bifurcation that leads to soft egalitarianism as well. Women can’t be ordained leaders in church because of the creational differences between men and women, but when it comes to society those differences disappear somehow and they can be firefighters, police officers, soldiers, etc.

 

[jwright82]

Well here's the issue. It's not complex. The Bible couldn't be clearer on sodomy. It's rather disingenuous of Horton to ask why Christians aren't waging campaigns against other legal immoralities. At the time sodomite "marriage" wasn't legal, in fact many states explicitly prohibited it, but there was a campaign to make it so. That was the fight being fought at the time. We cannot campaign on every single issue. Why fight a battle that had already been lost when there was one which was actually being won? Legislatively, that is, until the Supreme Court interfered.

But Christians in the past did oppose no-fault divorce laws and the like. Just as they fought to keep prayer in schools and keep condoms out. But these battles were all eventually lost.

I can't for the life of me think of a good reason why a Christian would be interested in promoting anything other than Christian, Bibical morality. It is not the Christian's job to protect the "separation of church and state". He should focus on witnessing for Christ. Christians who set themselves up as Christian commentators should stick to promoting Christian doctrine and godliness and leave the secular stuff to the atheists.

Well I'm no lawyer but it is complicated, as is "no-fault divorice". The moral stand the Christian should take is "homosexuality is morally wrong and one should oppose it by any and all legal means (that includes the legal right to voice ones opinion) possible". Our lack of legal understanding doesn't make a lay person wrong however they think but we lay people could be missing something.

 

[RamistThomist]

Well I don't think Hart is converted so I suppose my unintentional use of the same language was providential.

I am just quoting this so the moderators can see this. You realize you are making these charges about an elder in good standing in a NAPARC church?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

But Christians in the past did oppose no-fault divorce laws and the like. Just as they fought to keep prayer in schools and keep condoms out. But these battles were all eventually lost.

Ian Paisley mentioned no-fault divorce in a sermon back when it was being introduced into the UK. I think he said something to the effect that it would reduce marriage to nothing more than a human equivalent of a dog licence. In many ways, he was prescient on this point, as no-fault divorce seems to be the root of much of the lunacy that we have today.