What makes someone "Radical 2k"?

[Susan777]

Well, I do recognize Machen! Some are actors, and a few of them in the past have definitely been characters from The Wire.

Thanks again.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Allen made a lot of enemies in his day, but man could he thwack a baseball. I don't think Richie Allen is R2K.

But I think Darryl would like to think he hits it out of the ballpark on his blog. But I found him quite lacking in fact and posting with jaded eyes in a Klinean hermeneutic. I once announced that I was amazed he was a prof given the status he is given as a historian at Hillsdale. He misses some things concerning Machen's social beliefs concerning the World and education. Hillsdale should have sought a better historian as WSC should look for a better Systematic Theology historian also. I was once told John Ball had no influence upon those who who contributed to the Standards and I should avoid him. That is not just my criticism alone.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

But I think Darryl would like to think he hits it out of the ballpark on his blog. But I found him quite lacking in fact and posting with jaded eyes in a Klinean hermeneutic. I once announced that I was amazed he was a prof given the status he is given as a historian at Hillsdale. Hillsdale should have sought a better historian as WSC should look for a better Systematic Theology historian also. That is not just my criticism alone.

I think he's quite the underachiever. The Lord's obviously gifted him with a fine intellect, and yes, a dry as a 4 olive martini sense of humor, but his books, which are academic in nature, do not knock me out in any manner. His blog is impish at best, frivolous at mid-depth, and sometimes sinful at worst, in the way he mocks other human beings. I think he can do better. Then again, so can I, even though I'm not in his league intellectually.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I think he's quite the underachiever. The Lord's obviously gifted him with a fine intellect, and yes, a dry as a 4 olive martini sense of humor, but his books, which are academic in nature, do not knock me out in any manner. His blog is impish at best, frivolous at mid-depth, and sometimes sinful at worst, in the way he mocks other human beings. I think he can do better. Then again, so can I, even though I'm not in his league intellectually.

I like Darryl. I even posted a blog as a joke asking who should be President with these pics as our Posters.


And I am not a Southern Presbyterian either. But I like the pipes. Mine probably cost more. LOL

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I think he's quite the underachiever.

I think he speaks too much and exposes himself. I have known of Darryl for many years. I know the guy who coined the phrase Radical Two Kingdom Theology. I prefer to acknowledge Radical and Neo Two Kingdom. Their view is definitely Neo. Machen would have a few things to say to Darryl in my estimation that would shape him better if he would listen.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

I like Darryl. I even posted a blog as a joke asking who should be President with these pics as our Posters.

View attachment 6550View attachment 6550 View attachment 6551
And I am not a Southern Presbyterian either. But I like the pipes. Mine probably cost more. LOL

He is funny; those pics are funnier. I know people who know him well, and they say he's a riot. I'd vote for you. I'm a Jersey boy, born and bred, but i'll take Lee over Grant any day. And Lincoln's war could've been avoided with maybe a decade's more patience. To think that Presbyterians separated over NOTHING that contradicted the Standards is painful. Then again, you cannot partake of The Table together if you're killing each other.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

I think he speaks too much and exposes himself. I have known of Darryl for many years. I know the guy who coined the phrase Radical Two Kingdom Theology. I prefer to acknowledge Radical and Neo Two Kingdom. Their view is definitely Neo. Machen would have a few things to say to Darryl in my estimation that would shape him better if he would listen.

I think we can all learn a lot from J. Gresham. He was a mensch.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I’m convinced that the wedding of exclusive redemptive-historical hermeneutics with neo-Two Kingdoms theory, resulting in the view that pastors shouldn’t teach/preach on public policy issues lest they jeopardize “the spirituality of the pastoral call,” would have excluded from ordination and the pastorate John Calvin, John Knox, and pretty much all the English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians of the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries, including pretty much all the members of the Westminster Assembly. A theory the implication of which would be that is, I think, simply not credible.

Let the neo-Two-Kingdom guys urge that we maintain the centrality of the focus on the gospel; let them urge that we keep our priorities straight; let them urge that before pastors speak on public policy issues they take the time really to learn enough about them to speak credibly; let them even recommend, as a matter of prudence, that no pastor devote more than, say, 5 hours a week to studying a public policy issue, and therefore that he not presume to teach on it until he’s been studying it (i.e., the broad principle question–a specific legislative or regulative proposal might be new and susceptible of much quicker understanding) for at least two years, or something like that. But, unless they really just want to jettison the Reformed/Presbyterian heritage (and for that matter the heritage of all the Biblical prophets), let them not say that pastors must simply eschew teaching about public policy issues. The members in the pews, some of whom must fill public offices and all of whom are called, in this democratic republic, to vote for those who will fill public office, need their Biblically–and economically or historically or scientifically, etc.–informed wisdom.

E. Calvin Beisner

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

To think that Presbyterians separated over NOTHING that contradicted the Standards is painful. Then again, you cannot partake of The Table together if you're killing each other.

I disagree here. The RPCNA moved North because of the slavery issue. I am solidly on the side of States rights and our differing constitutions having issues. This was a time of infancy I think. Both sides had moral implications. That is part of my problem here. The Church has a problem with knowing history. I think God made his choice and has given us over to our own lust in this day. That happened back then too even though Lee and Jackson wouldn't have been contributors in that.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

BTW, my denomination has remained a solid Church for the past centuries despite the weirdness of pragmatists of the neo 2K movement in the URCNA and OPC.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I actually find that most who come into the URCNA and OPC don't understand the historical significance of their forefathers. There are too many new comers who find themselves here without understanding. I was and I am like like that in the Centuries old RPCNA. It is hard. Too bad that Kline redefined so much theooogical stuff in the OPC that it is unrecognizable.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/two-different-definitions-of-merit/

 

[Clark-Tillian]

I disagree here. The RPCNA moved North because of the slavery issue. I am solidly on the side of States rights and our differing constitutions having issues. This was a time of infancy I think. Both sides had moral implications. That is part of my problem here. We have a problem with knowing history. I think God made his choice and has given us over to our own lust in this day. That happened back then too even though Lee and Jackson wouldn't have been contributors in that.

Politics on the PB? Well, I suppose the entire R2K issue involves politics at a deep level. I don't think the War Between the States was fought over slavery, primarily. Was it a factor? Certainly. But to have Christians--especially Confessional Presbyterians, killing each other is tragic. I often think of Europe; if all those nation states of "Christendom", with monarchs that were often cousins, had thought of themselves first as Christians rather than "English" etc. Think of the time and money and blood that could've been saved.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Politics on the PB? Well, I suppose the entire R2K issue involves politics at a deep level. I don't think the War Between the States was fought over slavery, primarily. Was it a factor? Certainly. But to have Christians--especially Confessional Presbyterians, killing each other is tragic. I often think of Europe; if all those nation states of "Christendom", with monarchs that were often cousins, had thought of themselves first as Christians rather than "English" etc. Think of the time and money and blood that could've been saved.

This is another topic. Sorry. I brought it in. I don't believe Slavery was the primary issue either but it is today as it is taught. You have to set Europe aside unless you want to involve non involvement. Walter Williams is a much better historian than Darryl Hart.

I think of the bloodshed in terms of freedom over land and belief. Slavery was a main motivator unless you want to speak about New York and the draft. Only 13 percent of the Confederate Army owned slaves. It was a matter of invasion to them. There is a lot you are leaving out. And Hollywood gets it wrong. So don't depend upon the recent films.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

I actually find that most who come into the URCNA and OPC don't understand the historical significance of their forefathers. There are too many new comers who find themselves here without understanding. I was and I am like like that in the Centuries old RPCNA. It is hard. Too bad that Kline redefined so much theooogical stuff in the OPC that it is unrecognizable.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/two-different-definitions-of-merit/

I hear that. I recently had a major conflict with an RE that I considered one of the best fiends I ever had. Over the PCA's BCO. He didn't know NAPARC churches existed until he met me; he wasn't a convinced Trinitarian. And yet he thought he understood the BCO better than I did. Even though I've been in the PCA since he was in high school; have been on Overtures at GA; Chair of the Admin Committee of Ascension Presbytery; took a Seminary class 1 x 1 with Paul Gilchrist etc. He doesn't know the history of compromise in the BCO. He doesn't get the nuances. He's ripped my life and my congregation apart. Saddening. And sobering.

 

[Clark-Tillian]

This is another topic. Sorry. I brought it in. I don't believe Slavery was the primary issue either but it is today as it is taught. You have to set Europe aside unless you want to involve non involvement. Walter Williams is a much better historian than Darryl Hart.

I think of the bloodshed in terms of freedom over land and belief. Slavery was a main motivator unless you want to speak about New York and the draft. Only 13 percent of the Confederate Army owned slaves. It was a matter of invasion to them. There is a lot you are leaving out. And Hollywood gets it wrong. So don't depend upon the recent films.

Of course, I'm leaving a lot out--it's an Internet forum, and I've not seen any of the recent films.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

They need to get to know Frank Smith then. He was there at the beginning. He is RPCNA now.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

 

[Susan777]

I’m convinced that the wedding of exclusive redemptive-historical hermeneutics with neo-Two Kingdoms theory, resulting in the view that pastors shouldn’t teach/preach on public policy issues lest they jeopardize “the spirituality of the pastoral call,” would have excluded from ordination and the pastorate John Calvin, John Knox, and pretty much all the English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians of the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries, including pretty much all the members of the Westminster Assembly. A theory the implication of which would be that is, I think, simply not credible.

Let the neo-Two-Kingdom guys urge that we maintain the centrality of the focus on the gospel; let them urge that we keep our priorities straight; let them urge that before pastors speak on public policy issues they take the time really to learn enough about them to speak credibly; let them even recommend, as a matter of prudence, that no pastor devote more than, say, 5 hours a week to studying a public policy issue, and therefore that he not presume to teach on it until he’s been studying it (i.e., the broad principle question–a specific legislative or regulative proposal might be new and susceptible of much quicker understanding) for at least two years, or something like that. But, unless they really just want to jettison the Reformed/Presbyterian heritage (and for that matter the heritage of all the Biblical prophets), let them not say that pastors must simply eschew teaching about public policy issues. The members in the pews, some of whom must fill public offices and all of whom are called, in this democratic republic, to vote for those who will fill public office, need their Biblically–and economically or historically or scientifically, etc.–informed wisdom.

E. Calvin Beisner

Does your pastor preach on public policy issues?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Yes, When it defies God's command. We have a denominational statement also. We are not Canada.

I pray we don't end up there. The next generation will suffer more if they believe that marriage is marriage.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Clark's extensive quotations favorably reference a particular stream of Reformed thought

Probably out of context. How do you define a Covenant of Works? Do you want to visit your military accusation of a Covenant of works stuff?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

In addition, Clark has numerous favorable references to the Marrow of Modern Divinity,

We have problems Houston.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...-divinity-and-the-recent-republication-issue/

Someone on the Puritanboard wanted to know how the view of Republication contained in the Marrow of Modern Divinity measured up.

He asked, “I have some questions in regards to Republication in the book Marrow of Modern Divinity. The book seems to be supporting some sort of republication of the CoW at Sinai. The Republication of the CoW proposed in Marrow does not seem like what we have in modern Republication. Am I right?”

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/marrow-modern-divinity-republication-83911/

Reverend Winzer does a really good job pointing out the positions advocated in the Marrow. He speaks and addresses a few questions in the discussion linked to above that I think highlight some of the problems with the Modern understanding propagated by those who hold to the modern Republication model advocated by David Van Drunnen, R. Scott Clark, Bryan Estelle, J. V. Fesko, and those who adhere to the teachings of Meredith G. Kline’s later theological stance concerning the Mosaic Covenant.

Reverend Winzer comments in Post 2…

‘The traditional view held that there was a republication subordinate to the covenant of grace, whereas the modern movement maintains that republication is co-ordinate with the covenant of grace. The one sets forth the unity and continuity of the covenant of grace as administered under Law and Gospel while the other introduces division and discontinuity into the covenant of grace.”

The last post at this time ,post #12, is an answer to Reverend Todd Ruddell.

Reverend Ruddell asks, “What is the “Marrow” combating in that line of argument?”

Reverend Winzer replies,”Antinomista questioned the belief that the covenant of grace was renewed with the people of Israel and is the same in substance with the new covenant, and quoted Jeremiah in an attempt to show there are two covenants differing in substance. From an Antinomian perspective, the law and the old covenant are one and the same and the abrogation of the old covenant entails abrogation of the law in every respect.”

Now, I know for a fact that one of the Professors I use to communicate with holds to a doctrinal stance that Antinomista is advocating in the Marrow. That being that the Mosaic Covenant is both an administration of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. It is a mixed Covenant. Let me quote Dr. R. Scott Clark’s Theological Theses at the end of this blog. It is certain that even Evangelista is in opposition to the movement that is being presented today as an acceptable understanding of Republication. But it wasn’t Fisher’s or Boston’s view that these men are teaching and claiming to advance. I have heard one of them specifically say they are in agreement with what the Marrow men advocated. If the Marrow of Modern Divinity is teaching the doctrine of the Marrow Men then it appears that some of these guys are off base. Reverend Winzer points out that the root of this teaching advocated by this Modern teaching has more in common with Antinomista’s position. Reverend Winzer makes note of this in his last sentence on post 6 stating, “If one is looking to trace the co-ordinate view of republication to its ancestry the tree will lead back to Antinomista, not Evangelista.”

Dr. Clark’s Theological Theses.
http://clark.wscal.edu/covtheses.php
Biblical / Exegetical section…
13. The Mosaic covenant was not renewed under Christ, but the Abrahamic covenant was.

16. With regard to the land promise, the Mosaic covenant was, mutandis, for pedagogical reasons (Galatians 3:23-4:7), a republication of the Adamic covenant of works.

17. With regard to justification and salvation, the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace.

18. The Israelites were given the land and kept it by grace (2 Kings 13:23) but were expelled for failure to keep a temporary, typical, pedagogical, covenant of works (Genesis 12:7; Exodus 6:4; Deuteronomy 29:19-29; 2 Kings 17:6-7; Ezekiel 17).

19. The covenant of grace, initiated in history after the fall, was in its antepenultimate state under Adam, Noah, and Abraham, its penultimate state under the New Covenant administration and shall reach its ultimate (eschatological) state in the consummation.

20. The term “Old Covenant” as used in Scripture refers to the Mosaic epoch not every epoch before the incarnation nor to all of the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures indiscriminately.

21. The New Covenant is new relative to Moses, not Abraham.



I thought the thread was pretty explanatory. It lays out that the modern understanding of Republication differs significantly from that of the teaching in the Marrow of Modern Divinity. This should draw a line for some of us. I personally am not a Marrow Man but it is within the confessional bounds of Reformed teaching. That being that the Mosaic Covenant is an Administration of the Covenant of Grace and not a mixed Covenant.

Be Encouraged guys. Press on.

 

[jwright82]

I wouldn't but that is something between klineanism and results of it as opposed to historical Two Kingdom thinking.

So where do you draw the line between radical and ok? That was kind of the point of this thread. How much disagreement with your POV is ok and when does it become radical, and I already know you'll mention the first table of the law so pick something else for conversation sake? Love your blog posts BTW.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Have you listened to this?

 

[jwright82]

BTW, my denomination has remained a solid Church for the past centuries despite the weirdness of pragmatists of the neo 2K movement in the URCNA and OPC.

Pragmatists, you're gonna make me blush, William James is great. I'm only a pragmatist when it comes to a decision that will kill, persecute, and or disenfranchise people's lives. If people's lives aren't worth religious freedom than I don't know what is.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Pragmatists, you're gonna make me blush, William James is great. I'm only a pragmatist when it comes to a decision that will kill, persecute, and or disenfranchise people's lives. If people's lives aren't worth religious freedom than I don't know what is.

Then you do not live in Canada do you?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Thomas Boston wrote (Works, 4:156-157):
“There is one thing, which, from experience, we are taught they may lay their account to lose, namely, the countenance and protection of the civil magistrate in their duty. This is in itself a great loss. And seeing God has promised to a church, when he is well pleased with her, “that kings shall be her nursing fathers, and their queens her nursing mothers;” the withdrawing of it must be a sign of the Lord’s displeasure. Yea, and if we trace the sins of rulers that bear hard on the people to their first spring, we will find that it is some quarrel that God hath with the people, 2 Sam. 24:1. This should humble us, and stir us up to pray for them, and be dutiful to them, to whom the Lord has said, “ye are gods,” in every thing that is not inconsistent with your duty to God himself. But this is a trial to us, whether we will regard God or man most; and the saints will ever prefer the countenance of the Lord to the countenance of the highest powers on earth, and depend upon his protection alone when they are deprived of all other.”



“If Thomas Boston’s viewpoint were accepted, the loss of the nursing father would be seen as a trial from which we should seek deliverance through ordained means. Those who hold to a dualist form of two kingdom theology regard the lack of a nursing father as ideal and normal for the church’s condition in the world, and would not see it as a trial or practically seek any improvement on the state of affairs.

To get down to the nitty-gritty of it, what love is it to your neighbour, what honour to your superiors, to wish the national interest to remain alienated from the life of God and strangers to His blessings? What Christian in his right mind is content to see God dishonoured and a plethora of other gods worshipped in His place?

We are not able to change the moral conditions of society apart from our own personal response to them, but our personal response should include vexation of soul and grieving over the ungodliness of our fellow-men. The idea of building a doctrine from Scripture which supports and justifies being content with the dissolution of Christian standards in a society runs contrary to everything the Scripture tells us about the righteous Lord loving righteousness and hating wickedness.” I can't remember who I quoted here.

In a blog I did years ago (2012) I pointed out that Dr. Kinneer rightly conveys this is a problem with a poor Christology.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ngdoms-view-vs-the-biblical-one-kingdom-view/

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...t-all-politics-are-a-war-for-the-soul-of-men/


I was taught right and wrong based upon a presumption. I was taught what my Society taught me was true. I freely admit that. My parents were not raised in Church. I wasn’t. But I was raised knowing the Ten Commandments and how they relate to some of my life. I came from a Dutch family that migrated to America for a better life I imagine. My English predecessors (which are a small faction in my heritage) were here for progress as I can imagine. We have cars in our heritage. My German (and I am mostly Dutch / German and Swede) came over for probably religious reasons as some of my heritage suggests. But I am not sure. My Swedish family came over for probably other reasons even though they were strictly Lutheran as I know. But I am an actual descendant of William Bradford (English) the Governor of the Plymouth Plantation who came over for the true reason of seeing Christ’s Kingdom being furthered. Yes, For that purpose. So they could WORSHIP GOD FREELY. FREEDOM. NOT ANARCHY.

Let me say I am an actual descendant of the William Bradford’s line. He helped write and put together the Mayflower Compact which is one of our Nation’s original Governmental Covenantal documents. I think I can prove that.

I can imagine some of the arguments against such a proposition. Especially since I have communicated with D. G. Hart, R. Scott Clark, and others of their theological perspective…. Guess how I will end this story as a descendant of our founder in light of recent Modern Reformed discussions? Especially since I am from a Covenanter theological persuasion. Guess what recent controversies we would discuss? Their perspective is called Radical Two Kingdom Theology and what I call Klineanism. They believe in a dualism that is dichotomous. The Government operates from a different foundation than the Church concerning what is Moral. Is it doing us any good as a Church in light of what I may have been taught concerning the Kingdom of Christ: Is this teaching doing anyone’s children any good? Is it opposed to what we have been taught? I believe it is and it has hurt the Church and Society as a whole. I will post what I have been taught in a video below. Some would refer to it as Romanism. I would say it isn’t. It is not like Romanism. It does depend upon the Decalogue though. Why is that bad or not bad? I believe Rome is better than this Society in some ways since I believe some Roman Catholics do find Christ as our Reformers did. I also believe some Roman Catholics are saved. At least they had the whole Law to guide them. This Society in the United States of America has very little if nothing. It even denies the founders now saying they were incorrect in so many ways.

Please don’t bring up the Slavery issue. It is a moot issue. Check your facts.

I believe when the Ten Commandments are denied the soul of men are left to death. There is nothing to point to what is correct or wrong. The Ten Commandments point to life also. Some say they point to death only. I would say they are the way of life for the Christian also. Just try disobeying them and denying them as a Christian. Hold tight to them you will find life in Christ. You can not go against the grain of God’s word and find goodness. There is some truth in both statements concerning life and death. The Law has to understood contextually. It has to be understood contextually. It has to be understood contextually. Everyone says that. Even those who are R2K. I believe DR. Clark would agree with that. But we are losing the battle right now. Politics are a war for the soul of men. Even when others deny it in my estimation. Our Society (Government) tells others what they should be comfortable with. It even enforces it. I think the modern R2K guys have lost sight of that. We started off worrying about Marijuana. But I believe Homosexuality is way worse than any argument over what we put in our bodies. The things we can put into our bodies may lead to debauchery but to endorse homosexuality in any form is reprobate and now the USA has done that. Forget the Marijuana thing. This is even worse.

Even the Rainbow has been perverted. Wow! The very symbol that God cares about a perverse mankind and demands repentance has been perverted.

 

[jwright82]

Then you do not live in Canada do you?

Nope. Never even had the pleasure of going there.

 

[jwright82]

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...t-all-politics-are-a-war-for-the-soul-of-men/


I was taught right and wrong based upon a presumption. I was taught what my Society taught me was true. I freely admit that. My parents were not raised in Church. I wasn’t. But I was raised knowing the Ten Commandments and how they relate to some of my life. I came from a Dutch family that migrated to America for a better life I imagine. My English predecessors (which are a small faction in my heritage) were here for progress as I can imagine. We have cars in our heritage. My German (and I am mostly Dutch / German and Swede) came over for probably religious reasons as some of my heritage suggests. But I am not sure. My Swedish family came over for probably other reasons even though they were strictly Lutheran as I know. But I am an actual descendant of William Bradford (English) the Governor of the Plymouth Plantation who came over for the true reason of seeing Christ’s Kingdom being furthered. Yes, For that purpose. So they could WORSHIP GOD FREELY. FREEDOM. NOT ANARCHY.

Let me say I am an actual descendant of the William Bradford’s line. He helped write and put together the Mayflower Compact which is one of our Nation’s original Governmental Covenantal documents. I think I can prove that.

I can imagine some of the arguments against such a proposition. Especially since I have communicated with D. G. Hart, R. Scott Clark, and others of their theological perspective…. Guess how I will end this story as a descendant of our founder in light of recent Modern Reformed discussions? Especially since I am from a Covenanter theological persuasion. Guess what recent controversies we would discuss? Their perspective is called Radical Two Kingdom Theology and what I call Klineanism. They believe in a dualism that is dichotomous. The Government operates from a different foundation than the Church concerning what is Moral. Is it doing us any good as a Church in light of what I may have been taught concerning the Kingdom of Christ: Is this teaching doing anyone’s children any good? Is it opposed to what we have been taught? I believe it is and it has hurt the Church and Society as a whole. I will post what I have been taught in a video below. Some would refer to it as Romanism. I would say it isn’t. It is not like Romanism. It does depend upon the Decalogue though. Why is that bad or not bad? I believe Rome is better than this Society in some ways since I believe some Roman Catholics do find Christ as our Reformers did. I also believe some Roman Catholics are saved. At least they had the whole Law to guide them. This Society in the United States of America has very little if nothing. It even denies the founders now saying they were incorrect in so many ways.

Please don’t bring up the Slavery issue. It is a moot issue. Check your facts.

I believe when the Ten Commandments are denied the soul of men are left to death. There is nothing to point to what is correct or wrong. The Ten Commandments point to life also. Some say they point to death only. I would say they are the way of life for the Christian also. Just try disobeying them and denying them as a Christian. Hold tight to them you will find life in Christ. You can not go against the grain of God’s word and find goodness. There is some truth in both statements concerning life and death. The Law has to understood contextually. It has to be understood contextually. It has to be understood contextually. Everyone says that. Even those who are R2K. I believe DR. Clark would agree with that. But we are losing the battle right now. Politics are a war for the soul of men. Even when others deny it in my estimation. Our Society (Government) tells others what they should be comfortable with. It even enforces it. I think the modern R2K guys have lost sight of that. We started off worrying about Marijuana. But I believe Homosexuality is way worse than any argument over what we put in our bodies. The things we can put into our bodies may lead to debauchery but to endorse homosexuality in any form is reprobate and now the USA has done that. Forget the Marijuana thing. This is even worse.

Even the Rainbow has been perverted. Wow! The very symbol that God cares about a perverse mankind and demands repentance has been perverted.

Yes the mayflower compact was one of our original governmental covenantal documents, so we're the articles of confederation. Both null and void after the constitution. But don't know what that has to do with this thread. From what I can gather from your post, it is a "dichotomist" view of church and state that makes one R2K? I don't know what you mean by that, could you elaborate?

 

[Susan777]

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...t-all-politics-are-a-war-for-the-soul-of-men/


I was taught right and wrong based upon a presumption. I was taught what my Society taught me was true. I freely admit that. My parents were not raised in Church. I wasn’t. But I was raised knowing the Ten Commandments and how they relate to some of my life. I came from a Dutch family that migrated to America for a better life I imagine. My English predecessors (which are a small faction in my heritage) were here for progress as I can imagine. We have cars in our heritage. My German (and I am mostly Dutch / German and Swede) came over for probably religious reasons as some of my heritage suggests. But I am not sure. My Swedish family came over for probably other reasons even though they were strictly Lutheran as I know. But I am an actual descendant of William Bradford (English) the Governor of the Plymouth Plantation who came over for the true reason of seeing Christ’s Kingdom being furthered. Yes, For that purpose. So they could WORSHIP GOD FREELY. FREEDOM. NOT ANARCHY.

Let me say I am an actual descendant of the William Bradford’s line. He helped write and put together the Mayflower Compact which is one of our Nation’s original Governmental Covenantal documents. I think I can prove that.

I can imagine some of the arguments against such a proposition. Especially since I have communicated with D. G. Hart, R. Scott Clark, and others of their theological perspective…. Guess how I will end this story as a descendant of our founder in light of recent Modern Reformed discussions? Especially since I am from a Covenanter theological persuasion. Guess what recent controversies we would discuss? Their perspective is called Radical Two Kingdom Theology and what I call Klineanism. They believe in a dualism that is dichotomous. The Government operates from a different foundation than the Church concerning what is Moral. Is it doing us any good as a Church in light of what I may have been taught concerning the Kingdom of Christ: Is this teaching doing anyone’s children any good? Is it opposed to what we have been taught? I believe it is and it has hurt the Church and Society as a whole. I will post what I have been taught in a video below. Some would refer to it as Romanism. I would say it isn’t. It is not like Romanism. It does depend upon the Decalogue though. Why is that bad or not bad? I believe Rome is better than this Society in some ways since I believe some Roman Catholics do find Christ as our Reformers did. I also believe some Roman Catholics are saved. At least they had the whole Law to guide them. This Society in the United States of America has very little if nothing. It even denies the founders now saying they were incorrect in so many ways.

Please don’t bring up the Slavery issue. It is a moot issue. Check your facts.

I believe when the Ten Commandments are denied the soul of men are left to death. There is nothing to point to what is correct or wrong. The Ten Commandments point to life also. Some say they point to death only. I would say they are the way of life for the Christian also. Just try disobeying them and denying them as a Christian. Hold tight to them you will find life in Christ. You can not go against the grain of God’s word and find goodness. There is some truth in both statements concerning life and death. The Law has to understood contextually. It has to be understood contextually. It has to be understood contextually. Everyone says that. Even those who are R2K. I believe DR. Clark would agree with that. But we are losing the battle right now. Politics are a war for the soul of men. Even when others deny it in my estimation. Our Society (Government) tells others what they should be comfortable with. It even enforces it. I think the modern R2K guys have lost sight of that. We started off worrying about Marijuana. But I believe Homosexuality is way worse than any argument over what we put in our bodies. The things we can put into our bodies may lead to debauchery but to endorse homosexuality in any form is reprobate and now the USA has done that. Forget the Marijuana thing. This is even worse.

Even the Rainbow has been perverted. Wow! The very symbol that God cares about a perverse mankind and demands repentance has been perverted.

This discussion has been helpful but had led me to more questions about how these 2 perspectives would actually play out in someone’s life. If a Christian baker, for example, were asked to bake a cake for a sodomite couple how would he respond as a 2k believer? Would he do it out of a principle of love to neighbor, or civil society being ruled under a different morality? Would he feel he had incurred no displeasure from the Lord for doing so but rather had preserved God’s plan and purpose for the secular realm? What about an establishmentarian Christian? Would he bake the cake in obedience to the magistrate who has established “anti-discrimination” laws, believing that he must obey unjust laws if they arise from lawfully appointed servants?
Should such an action (refusal or willingness to bake the cake) derive from a Christian ethic and if so, what would this ethic be? Thanks for any thoughts.

I do want to clarify that I’m not asking anyone to speculate about what any particular proponent of either position would himself do, just the average believer who may hold either position. I don’t believe my question is irrelevant in our day but I can understand if no one wants to address it. It is a pity because if there is no practical outworking for a deeply held belief in the life of a Christian there seems little reason to discuss it at such length. In the end, I think I’m asking if I refused to bake the cake would my brothers have my back, or would they throw me under the bus.