I understand Dr. K. is trying to give 2k theology another try and for this Matthew Tuininga deserves much of the credit. I would have thought this an instance of “if you’re not Dutch you’re not much.” But since VanDrunen is a Dutch name — at least — and since Dr. K. has not begun to take back his 13-part take down of Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, factors other than ethnicity are at play.
But before anti-2k aggreessors lie down with 2k innocents, we need to keep our wits and check the fine print. In a recent post Dr. K., again in a mood of generosity toward Tuininga’s 2k, wondered if 2kers and neo-Calvinists might have more in common than he thought. The occasion for the piece was the recent decision of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Colorado Springs not to serve communion to Vice President Biden because of the latter’s support for abortion rights. This controversy led to considerations about when Roman Catholic politicians violate church teaching and are guilty of sin, as well as whether Roman Catholic church members are also guilty of sin for voting for candidates that don’t follow church teaching. Since Tuininga applauded Rome’s consistent opposition to an “evil so grave,” Dr. K. thought he saw an opening for further 2k and neo-Calvinist agreement.
This encouragement should be applauded because eliminating this evil is also required by “the principle of moral obedience binding on a disciple of Christ that simply cannot be compromised.” We would be troubled if our applause for the church-as-institute were permitted by our NL2K friends to be one-sided—applauding the church’s opposition toward intolerable evil, but not the church’s promotion of the good over against that evil.
Dr. K.’s point about the church as institute supporting opposition to evil seems to break down in Tuininga’s case since he is hardly the church as institute — he was merely one Christian opining about the Roman Catholic Church.
My concern is not with the Kuyperian distinction between church as institute or as organism but with the Calvinistic notion of evil. Dr. K. used the phrase “eliminating evil” or “eliminate evil” at least three times in his piece.
Eliminate? Really?
Can any good Calvinist, who takes Total Depravity seriously, ever entertain the idea that evil will be eradicated this side of the new heavens and new earth? Is not the notion of eradicating evil utopian and radical, sort of like the breathless idealism of Charles Finney’s perfectionism? For instance, in strictly legal terms, we have laws against murder. Have those laws stopped murder? So does Dr. K. actually believe that the criminalization of abortion will actually eliminate this evil?
But outside the ephemeral and fleeting world of law and the courts, does Dr. K. actually think that people who don’t murder are not guilty of murder? Has he not heard what Christ said about hate being an instance of murder? The reason evil cannot be eliminated this side of glory is that wickedness pervades the human heart — even the hearts of the regenerate.
And if Dr. K. followed the teachings of historic Calvinism (not to mention if he were a political conservative) he would never use the words “eliminate” and “evil” together. Of course, his word choice could be simply a slip of the word processor. But my suspicion is that Dr. K.’s mistake is actually an expression of the postmillennial tranformationalism that generally follows from taking “every square” inch captive. And this difference — whether the kingdom comes here and now in affairs outside the church or whether the renewal of all things awaits the return of Christ — is what keeps 2k lambs on the watch for anti-2k lions.
67 Comments
Sean and McMark, there go Machen, Vos, Van Til, Warfield, and Berkhof. They don’t accept the Scottish doctrine of the civil magistrate. They’re liberals, best not to be read.
it’s always good to read those with whom you disagree. That’s why I read John Howard Yoder, Stan Hauerwas, and Peter Leithart. The book to read from Leithart is The Reduction of Christianity; all since then is merely bells and whistles. What did you think of Sehat’s The Myth of American Religious Freedom? I know you helped him some with it.
“Is this former Catholic Sean or a different Sean? This would be easier if everyone just used their real, full name with a link to a website. (ahem, Richard Smith).”
Amen, Erik, “Sean” is already taken. And I’m so glad my parents the. Elmanns named me “M. Ike.”
And, anyway, it’s not a birthright to just use a first name; It has to be earned, like Cher and Snooki.
Erik and M&M, it’s the Scottish Sean (not the ex-RC).
McMark, I haven’t read all of David’s book. But one of the takeaways so far is that he seems to think any kind of moral claim is an abridgment of religious liberty. But he doesn’t seem to put feminism, egalitarianism, or anti-slavery in the column of moral claims. I find that very odd since the U.S. has been drowning in moralism since the election of 1800.
MM,
You can address me as Colonel or Sir! I’m sure I’ve earned it.
Colonel Sean, I could take or leave the rest of that movie, but the young smart a$$ new school lawyer Cruz examining the grizzled & old school military man Colonel Jessup (Jack Nicholson) is, for about ten minutes, as good as it gets in the movies.
MM,
I’m never quite sure where I fit in the greater scheme of societal sensibilities when Nicholson’s character garners my sympathy and Scientology boy’s character my derision.
Same here, Sean, and then conflicted by the shiney-toothed pretty boy actually being right.
Last name has been added. Happy now?
“Scottish doctrine of the civil magistrate”
I didn’t know that Calvin, Beza, Bucer, de Bres, Ursinus, Junius, Turretin, et al. were Scottish. This keeps getting more informative. You’re not trying to pit the Scots against the rest of the Reformed world on this subject, are you? There was a pan-Reformed doctrine of the civil magistrate: custos et vindex utriusque tabulae. It’s still here, we’re still holding it, and we’re not going away.
Sean, keep your eye on the Mcball. You said that none of the Scottish churches had revised the confession. I contend that all Reformed and Presbyterian churches outside Scotland have revised the confession. What may have been a pan-Reformed doctrine of the magistrate — was Erastianism held by all the churches? hardly — is no longer the case.
So again, what are you going to do with Scottish churches that maintain fellowship with churches that have departed from the “pan-Reformed” doctrine? What’s wrong with the Scots that the fellowship with Anabaptist Presbyterians?
Or maybe the problem is yours.
“I contend that all Reformed and Presbyterian churches outside Scotland have revised the confession.”
At least three denominations that are members of NAPARC use either the unupdated Westminster Confession or the unupdated Belgic Confession, namely, the Presbyterian Reformed Church (founded under the direction of John Murray), the Heritage Reformed Congregations, and the Free Reformed Churches of North America. There are also numerous American denominations outside of NAPARC which maintain the same standards.
McSean, okay, your case is getting thinner.
Now what about the fraternal relations that Scottish Presbyterians have with Anabaptist Presbyterians?
Dr. Hart,
I’m sorry for the way I have written to you… particularly the name-calling, but also the boastful way in which I’ve tried to assert that I am right, and you are wrong. Even if I am right, pride is an un-Christian, anti-Christian thing, and especially unbecoming those that confess the sovereign, discriminating grace of God. I must ask your forgiveness.
I may continue to express my disagreement with you in the future; but I assure you, I will attempt to do so with respect toward your person and office, as a ruling elder in Christ’s church.
In Christ,
Sean McDonald
Sean, thanks. Apology accepted. Disagreement appreciated. This is a conversation.
Sean posted October 26, 2012 at 12:02 pm
I’d appreciate clarification of what you mean by a “Cromwellian” understanding here. I’ve got some guesses but I’d prefer to get accurate information rather than just guessing.