Theological critique of Escondido Two Kingdoms Theology (III): Privatizing God's Creation Order...
(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.")
Back a couple years ago, David and I wasted too much time responding to R2K heckling on Baylyblog. Here's a good example of that waste of time. In this particular case, Darryl Hart piled on and you may easily take the measure of his method of debate through his words. Rereading it just now doesn't make me angry. Just weary—what a waste of time. Then Westminster Seminary-Escondido's R. Scott Clark shows up...
Note the mocking and scorn for God's Order of Creation being applied to anywhere other than the private life of Christians in the church and the home.
This has so often been the way of tithe-their-mint-and-cummin Reformed intellectuals. They make a show of submitting to the Creation Order when it's safe and private while denying that Creation Order out there in God's Creation. Anyone who points out their refusal to acknowledge God's Created Order out there in the public square where affirming and teaching it might cause shame before unbelievers is excoriated.
Ask yourself why Reformed men refuse to state that father-rule is God's Created Order and therefore applicable to all men in all places across all time? It's really no big danger to them to issue a statement... acknowledging this, at least to the church. So why won't they do it? Calvin and Knox did it. The Apostle Paul didi it. Why won't our Reformed luminaries do it today?
And when you've thought about this, you'll be well on your way to understanding R2K men's work to relegate God's Order of Creation concerning heterosexuality to the safe privacy of the church and the home, also.
It's embarrassing to say, but there could hardly be more universal laws pertaining to the life of man than father-rule and heterosexuality, yet it's precisely these laws that R2K men are at work privatizing.
This is the third in a (so far) eleven-part series opposing the liberal theology called "Two Kingdom," "Radical Two-Kingdom," "Rigid Two Kingdom," or "Revisionist Two Kingdom," and abbreviated here simply as "R2K." Here's the first in this series, the second, the third, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth, the seventh, the eighth, the ninth, the tenth, and the eleventh. And here's a post subjecting R2K to an historical critique.
A change to the title has reset the social networking stats at zero.