R2K (Radical Two Kingdom)

Homosexualist marriage, death, and compassion...

Think with a Christian mind. When a lesbian in a homosexualist marriage is facing death due to Stage IV ovarian cancer, one of two things is true: either now is the time to release her from the oppression of residents of the state of Indiana so she and her partner in this "loving relationship" may approach her death in peace; or now is the time to warn her that, if she defies God to her very end, upon death she will certainly face God's wrath and eternal damnation. Death is the great purifier of thoughts. The choices are clear. The Holy Spirit has spoken: "it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27).

Which side of this choice shows compassion for this immortal soul? The attorneys and judges who use this lesbian's impending death to express their own hatred and defiance of God? Or the citizens of the state of Indiana who call their civil magistrates to condemn the evil of lesbianism and warn those who practice it, particularly at the time of their death?

Who has compassion...

Seminaries and search committees in the dance of death...

Pastors are called to warn their sheep. This is the reason the Apostle Paul declares his innocence of the blood of those he pastored, saying he never failed to warn them. His warnings were both public and private and he gave them every last warning God commanded him to give. (See Acts 20.)

This is not true of Reformed pastors, today. There is a great absence of pastoral care among us and the pastor whose ministry is characterized by warnings must justify those warnings while the lethargic and conflict-avoiding Reformed pastors around him who trade in flattery and presumption are viewed as paragons of clerical virtue.

Think of the spiritual destruction of their sheep caused by such careless pastors and we tremble. Let's keep in mind, though, that people choose their own churches and pastors, and thus a certain measure of blame belongs on the congregants themselves. They have a chaplain rather than a pastor because they prefer a chaplain to a pastor. They prefer a man who can keep a good religious shine on their Reformed veneer providing religious cover for friendship with the world.

If this were as far as it went, it would be bad enough. Remember how our Lord took pity on the crowds because "they were sheep without a shepherd?" This is the condition of all those souls who have chosen churches and pastors who are committed never to warn their sheep. But it goes further. The damage caused by faithless shepherds extends beyond their own parish to sheep tended by faithful shepherds, also. Richard Baxter describes the process by recording the irritation sheep have with

Forty-one years of the slaughter of babies across America...

Yesterday marked the forty-first anniversary of the legalization of baby-slaughter by the evil justices of the Supreme Court of these United States. Their arguments were devious, or simply lies. But they had their way, and now they will face God and give an account for these forty-one years of bloodshed of innocents. Again this year, I post a sermon preached ten years ago in Indiana's Statehouse to focus our thoughts on this greatest of all evils we face today. Take time to read the sermon, thinking how you can speak up, and like Noah, be a preacher of righteousness.

* * *

The Lord'€™s Throne Is in Heaven

(For the choir director; a psalm of David.) In the LORD I take refuge; how can you say to my soul, "Flee as a bird to your mountain; for, behold, the wicked bend the bow, they make ready their arrow upon the string to shoot in darkness at the upright in heart. If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?" The LORD is in His holy temple; the LORD'€™S throne is in heaven; His eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men. The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates. Upon the wicked He will rain snares; fire and brimstone and burning wind will be the portion of their cup. For the LORD is righteous, He loves righteousness; the upright will behold His face. (Psalm 11:1-7)

Thirty one (now forty-one) years ago today, on January 22nd, 1973, the Supreme Court of these United States issued its infamous ruling, Roe v. Wade, in which the Court declared that a mother's intentional killing of her unborn child was a fundamental right guaranteed under our Constitution. Since that ruling, it has been a commonplace to observe that Roe v. Wade, the Court's repeal of the laws prohibiting abortion on the books of all fifty states, was simply the exercise of raw judicial power with a legal justification based upon a mist and a vapor--€”or as the Court itself might put it, emanations from penumbras.

Our Supreme Court: intentionally conniving at murder...

Since 1973, no one has made a name for himself defending Roe. v. Wade’s history, biology, ethics, logic, or justice; and only a few have been foolish enough to claim this ruling will stand the test of time...

Feminists who claim to be daughters of Calvin, Bullinger, and Knox...

Check out this post opposing what the author refers to as "Biblical patriarchy." It's written by a complementarian woman who styles herself "a daughter of the Reformation." With respect to the matter of God's Creation Order of sexuality, though, Ms. Miller is no daughter of the Reformation.

Her arguments are a combination of error, straw men, and straightforward repudiation of the Biblical doctrine of sexuality taught by Protestant church fathers through the centuries, starting with Luther, Calvin, and Knox, and continuing unbroken down through the centuries until a very few years ago.

First, the error: the post's author, Rachel Miller, quotes a Phoenix Seminary prof saying Don Bloesch was a complementarian. Don was not.

Don and his wife, Brenda, were good friends. One night my wife and I joined two Roman Catholic sisters...

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson: a postmodern morality play...

Well, they'll stone ya when you're trying to be so good
They'll stone ya just a-like they said they would
They'll stone ya when you're tryin' to go home
Then they'll stone ya when you're there all alone

But I would not feel so all alone
Everybody must get stoned.

-Bob Dylan, Rainy Day Women #12 & 35

Although a number of men I'm close to have loved the show for quite some time, yesterday in our pastors meeting I was told Duck Dynasty is one of the most popular TV shows of all time, and I was floored. I've never really gotten reality shows. More recently I haven't gotten FB, either. Everybody shouting at their friends that they just went gluten-free. Scintillating ain't it?

So yeah, the Robertsons are fun and I'd like to blow their duck call once or twice to hear why it made them rich. Is it "Queeeeaaaaaaaaauuuck" or just "Quack Quack?"

In fact, Duck Dynasty's success is mostly about money... {C}

The NSA is taking liberties from us...

(NOTE: After posting, this news just in.)

Since some readers were scandalized by Nelson Mandela's 1964 self-defense appearing here, maybe the anvil is hot and it's time to strike again giving readers another reason to believe David and I have turned into Commie-lovers.

Last night I read a long piece on the ten to fifteen year backstory to Edward Snowden's warnings that American citizens are routinely spied on by their government. The article titled, "State of Deception: Why won’t the President rein in the intelligence community?" by Ryan Lizza is a complicated story of Oregon Senator Ron Wyden's long and hard work defending American's civil liberties against the feds' fear-mongering espionage agencies that routinely dismiss the rulings of our Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) created to govern them. Lizza gives the history of the creation...

Sodomy rights trump religious freedom...

Peter and Rosemary Bull, the Christian couple fined in 2008 for not allowing sexual immorality in their bed and breakfast, have lost their appeal to the UK's Supreme Court. In a unanimous ruling, the court ruled the Bulls have no religious freedom to decline one of their bedrooms to the sodomite couple who filed a complaint against them.

After 25 years, the Bulls business has been ruined and they are now forced to sell their home.

From the court's decision, this from Deputy President...

A call to transform neither individuals nor society...

After having this post up for several hours, I've decided to take it back private. Sorry for the on-again off-again disruption. Also, I ask the forgiveness of my friend Bob Patterson, his friend Darryl Hart, and Baylyblog readers for posting this in the first place. In writing this post, I sinned against Christian humility and charity.

Supreme Court accepts Hobby Lobby appeal...

The Supreme Court has accepted an appeal of the requirement by President Obama's nationalized medicine that corporations pay for the murder of unborn children. The appeal filed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Mennonite woodworking company, is based on the companies' religious opposition to providing their employees abortifacient drugs such as "Plan B."

So now we'll see if Chief Justice Roberts has "grown" into lying about the First as well as the Tenth Amendment. Also whether he sees baby-slaughter as no big deal.

Reporting on SCOTUS agreeing to the review, USA Today...

R2K men stand for nothing, nowhere, and never...

Regular readers of Baylyblog know David and I have been warning souls against the R2K error for years, now. We are quite serious in saying that the men who promote this error pose one of the gravest threats to the Church of our time because their sales pitch is perfectly tuned to the sinful tendencies of postmodern Reformed church officers who feel shame at the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Worldling: "Are you really telling me I shouldn't love the man I love simply because he's a man, and not a woman? What gives you the right to diss my love life? Who do you think you are?"

R2K man: "No, you misunderstand me; I'm not telling you that you shouldn't love the man you love simply because he's a man, and not a woman. I'm telling you that I shouldn't love a man simply because he's a man, and not a woman. But I don't want to be triumphalist about it. I think you should have marriage rights just like everybody else! So now, dont' you think I'm a nice guy?"

Watch that word 'triumphalist'—it's key...

Legislating from the bench...

The next conniving step has been taken by the Indiana Court of Appeals which just ruled that one lesbian no longer engaging in sexual relations with another lesbian nevertheless has legal standing to seek visitation rights with her former sexual partner's child. Think about this: {C}

Lutherans masquerading as Reformed...

If you tired of the discussion under Craig French's post Tullian's therapeutic grace..., bear with me and read my comment just made at the bottom of that post's comments, on October 23 at 3:50 PM. And in that connection...

Tullian's therapeutic grace...

Saw this piece from Tullian Tchividjian applauded by another R2K advocate. In the article, Tullian sets out to rescue the world from the church. You see, the church has broken the spirit of wordlings and that's why people are abandoning churches and faith in God, altogether.

On the surface, he says some things that are true. In the end, however, the Gospel is, ironically, reduced to little more than a coping mechanism for an overarching sense of failure. This is Tullian's approach to the law: he does not preach it. He assumes...

Faithful Christian witness in the UK...

We are not homophobic, but the Bible is very clear that a man should not lie with a man and woman should not lie with a woman. Gay people are more than welcome to stay here, but not in the same bed. It is a case of love the sinner, but not the sin. How people choose to live their lives is their business, but I am responsible, in the eyes of God, for what happens in my home.

Christians are increasingly marginalised in British society, and what we have here is a head-on collision between the conflicting beliefs of Christians and those of homosexuals. Why should the rights of gay people take precedence over ours?

Mrs. Peter Bull, Marazion, Cornwall

Mr. and Mrs. Peter (Hazelmary) Bull ran a bed and breakfast in Cornwall, England the past three decades. Since they are Christians, the Bulls clearly stipulated to those considering staying with them that they were not willing to rent a double-bedded room to unmarried couples. Five years ago, the Bulls declined to rent a double-bedded room to an unmarried couple and the couple sued.

The Anglosphere and our man, Justice Scalia...

Last night I was reading a piece titled "The Anglosphere Miracle" in the October, 2013, issue of The New Criterion. The article is an excerpt from Daniel Hannan's forthcoming, Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World. Here's Hannan's declaration of one of the Anglosphere's central tenets:

We are still experiencing the after-effects of an astonishing event. The inhabitants of a damp island at the western tip of the Eurasian landmass stumbled upon the idea that the government ought to be subject to the law, not the other way around.

This is a good statement of the heroic work being done by Justices Scalia and Thomas on the Supreme Court of these United States. Both men are working assiduously to restore the authority of the Constitution of these United States over their fellow justices, as well as the rest of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of our federal government.

With that quote fresh in mind, a brother just forwarded a lengthy interview with Scalia in New York Magazine, and near the end there's this wonderful...

R2K is segregationist...

It's a regular theme in the New Testament history that the Jewish religious leaders felt the need to guard the precarious relationship that existed between their fractious nation and the Roman Empire. If they did not keep the peace, who would? And if the peace was not kept, what would happen to their synagogues and to the Temple and to their authority and wealth and status?

It is always the established religious leaders who feel the threat God’s servants the prophets pose to their carefully negotiated separation of powers between church and state. The balance is precarious and only they are qualified to maintain it—for the good of the people, of course!

Why "R2K" instead of "2K"?

First, a word about names. Why do I make it a habit to refer to this modern novelty as “R2K,” the initial 'R' standing for "Radical" or "Revisionist" two kingdom theology, rather than simply “2K” standing for "Two Kingdom"?

In the Reformed and Protestant world, fathers of the Church have long referred to “two-kingdom” distinctions they have employed as necessary to delineate the proper spheres of authority of state and church; of city councilmen on the one hand and deacons, pastors, and elders on the other hand. These two kingdoms or spheres of authority Martin Luther variously referred to as the Kingdoms of this World and the Kingdom of Christ, the Kingdoms of God’s Left Hand and the Kingdom of God’s Right Hand. So in that sense we could say that, insofar as the modern Escondido Theology or R2K men are speaking about the distinctions between the state and Church, and therefore the distinction between the Kingdom of this World and the Kingdom of God, they are joining a large and long conversation dear to the heart of each one of us pastors, elders, and believers living in this world while not of it.

In his helpful article, “One Kingdom or Two?”, Cornelius Venema writes:

…the two kingdoms [R2K] doctrine is alleged to be the venerable, original position of the Reformed churches. …(This) historical claim on the part of two kingdoms [R2K] advocates… represents a tendentious reading of the historical record.

- in "One Kingdom or Two? An Evaluation of the 'Two Kingdoms' Doctrine as an Alternative to Neo-Calvinism," by Cornelis Venema. Mid-America Journal of Theology 23 (2012): 77-129.

In Protestantism, both Presbyterian/Reformed and Lutheran, we now have five centuries of discussion and debate of this distinction and how best to work it out. No one has arrived at a solution to the tension and conflict that have always prevailed between the two kingdoms and it was this same conflict that led to this exchange between Pilate and Jesus Christ...{C}

Theological critique of Escondido Two Kingdoms theology (X): "There is no such thing as a secular society."

In its use of society as the foundational term for human community, modern political philosophy conceives of civic life on the pattern of a group of acting subjects in a purely human space. The ever recurring image of such a group is one of players around a table. As Thomas Hobbes wrote, "It is in the laws of a commonwealth, as in the laws of gaming: Whatsoever the gamesters all agree on, is injustice to none of them." It is to be found again in the work of Adam Smith, who speaks of the "great chess-board of human society." The image loses its metaphorical self-consciousness and becomes conceptually foundational in later authors. John Rawls' description of the original position provides a good example. And history takes political theory seriously. Our political communities have become "societies" resembling ever more closely a club of gamblers.

For the game to be fair, it must be secular. The space of our democratic societies is flat. Nobody is allowed to stand higher than others. The first to be excluded is the One Above, especially when people claim to have received from him some message or mission that puts them closer to his divine reality—and thus higher... {C}

Theological critique of Escondido Two Kingdoms theology (IX): Religious persecution 101...

(NOTE: This post is part of a series showing the errors of so-called Two-Kingdom Theology. We refer to it as "so-called" Two-Kingdom Theology because what the church historically has meant by "Two-Kingdoms" bears little resemblance to what Escondido Theology men mean when they write it today. Thus sometimes we write "Two-Kingdom Theology," but more often we write "Radical Two Kingdom," "Rigid Two Kingdom," or "R2K.")

Now arrive the justices of the Supreme Court of New Mexico declaring they will not tolerate freedom of conscience concerning sodomite marriages or "commitment ceremonies." Announcing their decision in Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock, the court declared Elane Photography was a "public accommodation" business, and therefore in violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Acts when the owner declined a job shooting pics of two women parading their shame through a public commitment ceremony.

Showing the utter degradation of legal reasoning in our law schools and courts today, the court preened itself over its enlightened devotion to civil rights: "when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the (New Mexico Human Rights Acts) in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races."

Seeking to justify the moral cesspool they preside over within their state, these Supreme Court justices trot out two assumptions they believe unassailable within the boundaries of their decadent society...

"Then watch me choose Jesus..."

Again and again, I trust that the flock under my care gives their eyes and attention to Doug Wilson. For Christians in America, reading Doug is part of the hard work needed that will yield the Christian's ability to discern between good and evil.

Today he teaches us how the Apple Pie/Motherhood/Stars and Stripes patriotism of the past has had "Hate is not a family value" patched into its fabric, and thus has turned to hatred of Christians who refuse to bow their knee to sodomy.

Faithful Christians, that is—not the quivering silent and saltless ones. Doug writes:

Force me to choose between Jesus and America, and then watch me choose Jesus.

The problem with the spirituality of the church men today is that no one is able to watch them choose Jesus. In fact, within many Reformed circles it is now a principle that the man out there in public visibly choosing Jesus has failed to think properly about, and appreciate sufficiently, that American value commonly referred to as "separation of church... {C}

An account of Abraham Kuyper's conversion: "one had to be born again"...

In connection with David Wegener's review of James Bratt's Abraham Kuyper: Modern Calvinist, Christian Democrat and his discussion of Kuyper's conversion, here is a piece of correspondence that complements Bratt's own account. The letter was written by P. H. A. van Krieken, niece of Maria Hartman who was longtime housekeeper to the Kuypers, recounting her own knowledge through her aunt of Kuyper's conversion and subsequent change in his pastoral work and preaching. The account warmed my heart and I'm guessing it will strengthen the faith of readers of Baylyblog, also. It is used by kind permission of its translator, Prof. Harry Vandyke.

* * *

Some third-hand information about Kuyper’s conversion

[The following letter was found in a typewritten copy among the papers of M. C. Smit in the Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto. Presumably the original is in the Dr. H. Colijn Archive at the Free University, Amsterdam.]

Letter from: P. H. A. van Krieken Huize Zonneweelde, Looydijk 158, [name of town left off]

Addressed to: His Excellency Dr. H. Colijn; Minister of State, The Hague

Dear Sir,

I was delighted to read in the Utrechtse Nieuwsblad that on 29 Oct. 1937 a commemoration is to be held of Dr. Kuyper, and because I come from Beesd and was born in 1868 I heard a lot about him, since my Aunt Maria Hartman was his maid for five years and experienced his whole turnaround [omkeering] and also knew Pietje Baltus as friend and always visited her conventicle [gezelschap] on Sundays, who told me everything that she went through with him, and I knew the elders who sat with him in Church Council.

His first round of visits that he paid as pastor in Beesd was announced to Pietje Baltus: Rev. Kuyper is in the neighborhood and will soon come to you too.

She says to that neighbor lady: That rascal might as well stay away, I don’t care for him...