The allegedly controversial character of 2k theology has prompted Lane Keister over at Greenbaggins to cease his review of John Frame’s recent book. He has also decided not to allow any more discussions of 2k at his blog. I understand Lane’s decision. I also concede that my sarcasm has contributed to his decision. For some reason, mocking someone’s objections does not bring out the best in those who object.
At the same time, some objections do no deserve a reasonable response. In fact, some who object to 2k have so made up their minds about the idea and its proponents that they will hear nothing in defense of the doctrine; they won’t even read the books written on 2k.
From the perspective of this 2k advocate who also doubles as a historian, two undeniable historical developments exist that 2k critics won’t accept — sort of like denying that the North defeated the South in 1865; you may not like it, but how do you deny what happened at Appomattox?
The first fact is that the critics of 2k do not advocate the execution of adulterers or heretics. This is pertinent because 2k critics fault 2kers for departing from Calvin and his holy Geneva. The problem is that the Baylys, Rabbi Bret, Nelson Kloosterman (and his favorite disciple, Mark Van Der Molen), Doug Wilson, and anonymous respondents at Greenbaggins don’t advocate the laws in Calvin’s Protestant Jerusalem. To the credit of theonomists, they sometimes do advocate the execution of adulterers and even recalcitrant adolescents. But 2k critics do not have the stomach for all of Calvin’s policies and laws. In which case, they have no more claim to Calvin as a standard for religion and politics than 2kers do. Yet, here’s the key. 2kers are honest. They actually admit that they disagree with Calvin. They actually acknowledge the deficiencies of those who try to follow the Old Testament for post-resurrection civil governments.
The second fact of cherry-picking proportions is that all of the Reformed churches that belong to the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council have rejected the teaching of both the Westminster Confession and the Belgic Confession on the civil magistrate. Not only have the mainline churches revised these confessions, but so have the conservative churches. (Ironically, Frame thinks I am unaware of the American revision of WCF in his review of A Secular Faith. This is ironic because if Frame were as aware of the revision as he thinks he is, he would see that 2k is not outside the confession that Presbyterians profess.) These revisions do not necessarily mean that every officer and member of these churches is an advocate of 2k. It does mean that the modern Reformed and Presbyterian churches have come to terms with modern governments and the disestablishment of Christianity in ways inconceivable to Reformed Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries. And this means that the critics of 2k are either unaware of how little standing the original WCF chapter 23 or Belgic Art. 36 has in conservative Reformed churches. Or if they know of confessional revision and use the original documents to denounce 2kers, they are dishonest.
Or perhaps they are simply foolish (and impolitely so). One of the additional points I made about the importance of the Reformed churches’ teaching on the magistrate was this:
I have said it before and will say again, even before the Covenanters revised their Constitution and rejected the language of WCF 23.1 which Tfan affirms, even before this, the RPCNA explored a merger with the OPC which had already adopted the American revisions to the WCF. In other words, the RPCNA had a very different view of the civil magistrate than the OPC did and did not let that difference keep them from fraternal relations with the OPC. I do not see that same generosity or acknowledgement of orthodoxy for 2kers from 2k’s critics.
The fanatic of Turretin’s response was this: “Again, this is total ad hominem. Try to focus on your defense of E2k, not at criticizing your critics.”
How this is ad hominem I do not know, though my Latin is rusty. But even if in some fifth or sixth definition of ad hominem my comment qualifies, I do not see how this point is beside the point. 2k critics treat 2k not only as if it is entirely outside the bounds of confessional orthodoxy, but they also react to 2k as if it is a threat to the gospel. They believe it is antinomian, destroys Christian schools, and abandons society to relativism. But the RPCNA, even when they still affirmed the original WCF 23, did not consider teaching on the civil magistrate a deal breaker. Critics of 2k, like John Frame, do.
And some people like Lane Keister wonder why 2kers like me become sarcastically indignant. But for those wanting to keep the debate going, they are welcome here.
Old Life 
Truth is divisive,
I’m not really sure what Ron means, but somewhere in there is my point — the one that looking only at 2kers as radical for departing from the 16th and 17th centuries is arbitrary until someone defines what moderate 2k is. If by moderate 2k you mean what Machen said in the following, then ‘s’all good:
BTW, truth divides, you can try to bring in as many other quotes from Machen as you like that you think support your side (whatever it is since there is not “substance”), but I will delete them unless you attempt to harmonize the quote I just gave with what you produce.
LikeLike
Darryl, the Machen quote seems compatible with churches and pastors discussing and pronouncing on the political and social questions of the day. All Machen says is that there is to be no “*official* pronouncement.” Indeed, Machen says the church has a responsibility to testify that the world is lost in sin. This seems compatible with the giving of specific examples of such sin—and here we may have intersection with political and questions of the day, e.g., abortion. We should also note that Machen wrote in a time when some political and social questions were not addressed, e.g., abortion, which he would obviously have condemned from the pulpit, at least if we’re charitable to him.
Anyway, the Machen quote does possibly seem inconsistent with the Larger Catechism conjoined with the view that the fetus is a human being. For the Catechism says we are to undertake “all lawful endeavors” to prevent “the taking of any innocent life.” The Catechism officially pronounces on the subject *by entailment*. So it may be that you’re forced to choose between The Machen and The Catechism.
LikeLike
Paul, your reading is a real stretch, especially considering the entire Old School Presbyterian tradition of opposing political pronouncements. But if yours gets you through the night. . .
LikeLike
So, Paul, you’re reading early 20th century Machen with later 20th century lenses? The principles of the spirituality of the church aren’t good for all times and places; they were fine to employ against the Protestant progressives, but they don’t apply to evangelical rightists because, well, obviously, abortion. That’s just different, because, well, obviously Machen would’ve preached Sanctity of Life Sunday sermons.
You sound more like a pro-lifer than a 2ker.
LikeLike
Darryl, I’m afraid I don’t understand. I brought up two issues, and am not clear which one you’re responding to.
The first is this: You asked Truth n’ Stuff to “harmonize” the Machen quote with his quotes. Here’s the harmonization: Just in case a pastor or church is not making an *official* pronouncement on the social and political issues of the day, he or it is within their rights to make *pronouncements* on the social and political issues of the day. My reading is a “stretch” insofar as quoting the man verbatim is a stretch. Now, if you want to bring in *other* considerations that *just* the Machen quote, by all means, do so. But that, as you’ll be bound to admit, is an entirely different matter than your request that Truth n’ Stuff harmonize * the Machen quote you gave*, sans “the entire Old School tradition” (which I assume your comments section didn’t allow you to cut and paste, being past the maximum character requirements n’ all).
The second is this: I argued that a very good and strong prima facie case can be made that the Larger Catechism has the resources in it which, if you accept some facts about the unborn (facts you are at pains to say you affirm), entail a political pronouncement.
Note the duties of the sixth commandment: The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all . . . lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by . . . avoiding all . . . occasions and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by . . . protecting and defending the innocent.
Note the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment: The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, . . . whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any [civilly innocent human being].
Now, given that you accept the premise that the unborn are human beings, and given that we know, coupled with the previous stipulated proposition, that standard abortion practices “tend to the unjust taking away the life of any,” and that abortion is something that “tends to the destruction of the live of a civilly innocent human being,” it appears to me that the Catechism comes down on a political and social issue of the day, at least for those who accept that the unborn are human beings. Moreover, we note that the Catechism says that we are to undertake “all lawful endeavors” that would protect “the unjust taking of the life of any,” and thus we can see that, at least *in principle*, it is conceivable that Christians could find themselves in a position where a vote for a proposition, or a vote that would lead to an amendment in the constitution (along the lines of, say, slavery, women’s suffrage, etc), or etc., where they would be *duty bound*, per the Catechism, to vote in a way that would lead to the protection of the life of the unborn. Accordingly, the Catechism, with the above stipulated proposition about the status of the unborn, *entails,* or could entail, an official announcement on a social or political question of the day.
So I’m not really clear what your comment was meant to address. But your concern for my sleep shows me that you’re trying to turn over a new leaf and ditch the “bad guy” image.
Zrim
I’m not sure how I’m reading Machen. I made the distinction between *mere* pronouncements and *official* pronouncements, which is all I need to undercut the bifurcation Darryl wanted to draw. In fact, we *know* that Machen made *mere* pronouncements. However, I then argued that you have a choice between The Machen and The Confession, if we go with your and Hart’s reading. So the argument was two-pronged.
As far as sounding “more like a pro-lifer than a 2ker,” it’s too bad that those who point out how “dualistic” they are can’t abide someone being both 2K and pro-life, as well as dividing his time and speaking about one more than the other on certain occasions.
However, what’s more interesting than that is this: You constantly tell us how 2K allows for disagreement, and here you are demanding I be a goose-stepping Hartzi, minding my p’s and q’s and not rocking the official 2K boat. Indeed, what’s more interesting than that is this: Horton recently had this to say:
HORTON: “If you affirm a distinction between saving and common grace, you’re already a ‘two kingdoms’ advocate.” (p. 20). http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH2012/NH2012Feb.pdf
So with this one, Horton has just pitched the biggest tent of all! Pretty much EVERY ONE is a 2Ker!! We’re all 2Kers now! The debate has been settled by defining your position so broadly that even the vast majority of 2K critics are now 2K. Move over The Gospel Coalition, you’ve just been subsumed by a tent bigger than which none can be conceived. Unfortunately for you, Steve, and you little point above, it’s nigh *impossible* to “sound more like a pro-lifer than a 2ker,” since, *by definition*, virtually all Christian pro-lifers *are* 2kers.
LikeLike
Nice post, Paul. Real nice, and real thorough too. Someone call a moderator to make sure your opponents stay on track should they respond. Or better yet, quick, someone say something objectionable so the thread can be closed before too many more nails are hammered into the coffin. 🙂
LikeLike
Paul, there’s maintaining a distinction between saving and common grace, but there’s also distinguishing between the spiritual mission of the church and the socio-political issues of the day. I don’t see how the distinction between “official” and “mere” really carries as much water for you to overlook the latter as you seem to. Nor do I see how the Catechism’s treatment of the sixth commandment means there is nothing to criticize about Sanctity of Life Sunday sermons.
Nor do I see how one cannot affirm everything the Catechism is saying about protecting human life and make a point about what it also says about the church intermeddling in the State’s affairs. I suppose it’s done by camping out mightily on the difference between “official” and “non-official.” But then I don’t know what stops anyone from getting on any particular political soapbox in a pulpit. Which means the next time Jeremiah Wright condemns America from the pulpit for “killing innocent people and treating them as less than human because that’s in the Bible,” pro-life/pro-war 2kers who want the church to weigh in on certain public policy call him out for it don’t really have a leg to stand on, since they employ the same hermeneutic he does. What’s good for the progressive-evangelical goose is also good for the rightist-evangelical gander, which is a double dose of the spirituality of the church.
P.S certainly there is room for pro-lifers in the 2k tent. It’s just that those of us who would prefer our political views to be described as anti-abortion wish even more if you guys would learn to moderate our shared political views and then put them into the back seat for the sake of the gospel. Politics don’t save, but they can alienate those from the gospel which saves who don’t share our particular views.
LikeLike
Ron, since Old Life doesn’t seem as dainty as GB, I doubt the thread will get shut down. But just to be sure, I do hope you hurry up and tell me how theonomy doesn’t undermine Jesus’ death for sinners when its whole program is about putting them back under the law his death abolished once for all.
LikeLike
Zrim, we’ve danced this dance before and, while I have nothing against you as a dance partner, if history is any guide, this won’t win us any votes on dancing with the stars. So I’ll bow out having said my piece. I can say, though, I am pleased to see your response to me didn’t include a comment about me “hyperventilating.” 🙂
LikeLike
“Ron, since Old Life doesn’t seem as dainty as GB, I doubt the thread will get shut down.”
Zrim,
I’m sure you’re right – it might not get shut down, but I don’t think it’s going to be moderated to the end that people will be constrained to stay on track. For instance,
“… tell me how theonomy doesn’t undermine Jesus’ death for sinners when its whole program is about putting them back under the law his death abolished once for all.”
That we might call a “loaded question” since it’s loaded with the disputed, question-begging presupposition of the debate. Does final atonement abrogate more than just the ceremonial law? You refer to “the law” having been abolished but even you still find the moral law binding. So, given that you’re willing to distinguish between moral and ceremonial aspects of the law, you’re left to argue that the civil law has been abrogated in the same way that the ceremonial law has been abrogated (as opposed to merely assuming the premise in your pregnant question).
Reasoning in such a way does not foster self-examination of one’s own position, let alone a critical analysis of the opposing one. So with Paul, I too will sit this dance out.
LikeLike
Me: “Darryl, read Ron’s argument to you. Do you agree with Ron? If so, that’s why it’s not helpful for you to use 2K. If you don’t agree with Ron, then why not.”
Ron: “Your argument thus far has been two-pronged: If non-E2K doesn’t follow the Divines to the precise letter, then they may not speak of E2K’s departure as being radical. Subsidiary argument: If most of the Reformed churches take at least some exception to the Divines, then E2K which may take as many exceptions they like without seeming radical in their departure. Then you played your final wild card, which reduced to: it’s impossible to know how much departure is extreme.”
Darryl Hart: “I’m not really sure what Ron means, but somewhere in there is my point — the one that looking only at 2kers as radical for departing from the 16th and 17th centuries is arbitrary until someone defines what moderate 2k is.”
Darryl, what was it specifically in Ron’s argument that you didn’t understand?
LikeLike
Paul, then it is enough for me that you have a theonomist giving you a perfect 10. Not great for 2k cred.
LikeLike
Ron, yes, and that’s precisely how WCF 19.3, 19.4 and 19.5 argue. WCF 19.3 and 19.4 make it plain that the civil and ceremonial laws are expired, while 19.5 makes it clear that the moral law abides. The ceremonial and the civil are abrogated in ways the moral isn’t. Are you saying the WCF does not foster self-examination of one’s own position, let alone a critical analysis of the opposing one? If so, then I’ll take the small-minded conclusions of the WCF to the bloated reasoning that makes hay of Christ’s sacrificial death.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Regarding your March 24, 2012 at 4:40 pm comment.
LOL.
LikeLike
Zrim,
1. If your argument is fallacious and the Confession employs the same argument, then it too is fallacious and your conclusion remains unjustified.
2. The Confession doesn’t argue. It confesses.
3. What you think the Confession concludes in an alleged argument makes you guilty, once again, of assuming a disputed premise, this time in the Confession, hence more question-begging on your part.
One can only wonder how you don’t tire of assuming your position by definition and resting your conclusions upon what you define as true.
LikeLike
Paul, I’m saying your distinction between mere and official is dubious. No Old Schooler would have recognized it. But it does show your strain.
LikeLike
Paul, as for your point about the Larger Catechism, of course it teaches lots of things about matters of morality that the state regulates. Have you heard of pubs and ale? If you want to pour political sermons through that, have at it (but you may not be in the right communion). But then you’ll also need to square your reading of the Larger Catechism with what the Divines say about churches not meddling in political affairs. I.e., morality is not politics (except to theonomists and the Religious Right).
I hope you enjoyed the cherry.
LikeLike
Ron, how could it possibly be thorough if Paul did not cite where the Divines actually talk about churches and politics?
LikeLike
Truthdivides, Ron used several negatives in his first sentence. He likes to correct my logic. I won’t correct his grammar. But I will say I can’t understand his point except that he seems to be saying that arriving at extreme 2k is a judgment call.
BTW, your number of anonymous comments has almost run out.
LikeLike
Ron, you’ve made comments here raising questions about whether the blog will be moderated. I am asking you as moderator to refrain from logic lessons and stick to the point.
LikeLike
“Ron, you’ve made comments here raising questions about whether the blog will be moderated. I am asking you as moderator to refrain from logic lessons and stick to the point.”
Darryl,
Let’s see if I have this right. When challenged by fallacious arguments that avoid the point and draw invalid conclusions I’m not permitted to explain why such tactics are illogical. You like a rigged game it would seem – kinda like pitching a tent so large so as to include all of Christendom. It’s interesting to me that those that employ valid arguments:TF, Paul, Steve H. etc. can’t get out blocks with E2K proponents.
LikeLike
Ron,
So, given that you’re willing to distinguish between moral and ceremonial aspects of the law, you’re left to argue that the civil law has been abrogated in the same way that the ceremonial law has been abrogated …
While “expired” and “abrogated” are not the same word, they clearly both speak of termination. It appears that different words are used to account for the different reasons for the termination. The ceremonial law was terminated because the OT types had given way to NT realities. Whereas the judicial law was terminated due to the fact that the nation itself had ceased to exist (in the sense that it was no longer to be identified with people of God). Another difference is that while the ceremonial laws were unique to Israel, many of the judicial laws shared principals of equity common to the nations, and some of those principals were even to be perpetuated in the church, such as not muzzling the ox. Hence that controversial clause at the end of WCF 19.4.
LikeLike
Ron, nothing rigged about this. It’s a matter of civility. People like to have their points responded to, not the form of their arguments criticized. BTW, it also looks like you prefer logic and use that to rig games.
LikeLike
TUAD, if you’re around, well there you have it. Ron regards the original WCF 19 on the law the way Kuyper did the original Belgic 36 on the civil magistrate. There also seem to be differences between the anti-2kers about whether blasphemers, adulterers, and disobedient children should be executed. The substance over seems to be that the magistrate must enforce the first table but how this is applied varies. There is a distinction between theocrats and theonomists, but to the 2k mind it’s a distinction without much difference because 2k rejects that substance altogether. And I’m willing to bet that if you ask most congregants in your church whether they want to see spiritual trespassers physically executed you won’t win many fans. And that’s because the church is already more 2k than you’d want to admit, most instinctively know the scandal of putting sinners back under the law Christ already physically fulfilled.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Your comment above fails miserably because of your inability to recognize that there are many people who are opposed to Radical 2K or Escondido 2K. I’ve made reference to this distinction above and has some commenter remarked, this will result in just going around and around in circles.
You say 2K, I say Radical 2K. I say Radical 2K, you say 2K. Wheeeeeeee!
LikeLike
Darryl,
I realize you *say* the distinction is dubious, but you haven’t *argued* that it is (and all you asked for is to make the posts *consistent*, which I did with the distinction, dubious or not (I’ll assume you know what consistency is?)). I do find it odd, though, that since you deny the distinction you must hold that any *mere pronouncement* by a church or pastor is an *official pronouncement*, and I find *that* idea dubious, to say the least.
I also realize you *say* that no Old Schooler would have recognized it, but you haven’t *argued* that either. Now, maybe you’re right. The point is, going solely off the quote you provided which you claimed *in and of itself* undercut the employment of Machen for pronouncments on matters social and political, it doesn’t appear that way and you’ve given me no *reason* to think it’s not how it appears. By the appearance of things, I am prima facie justified in believing that things *are* how they *appear* (just like I am prima facie justified in believing you *are* wearing a bow tie in your picture in A Secular Faith on the basis that it *appears* you are).
Next, you mention “what the divines say about not meddling in political matters” and act as if that undercuts my point that the Catechism *in fact* meddles in a current social and political matter. But that phrase is vague and ambiguous, and not a direct quote. Perhaps you could give me the exact quote you’re thinking of from either the Confession or Catechism?
But note what’s interesting. You made a subtle concession, and I’m not sure you’ve realized it. Machen said that the church shouldn’t officially pronounce of “the political and *social* matters of the day.” But, you now admit that the Confession does officially pronounce things that entail pronouncements on *social* matters of the day. And here you can’t use your claim that “morality isn’t politics” to escape the problem—for social matters of the day are often explicitly *moral* matters. So, on this score, Machen is wrong (if we read him how you want to), and you even admit it. Apparently the church *can* officially pronounce on at least the *social* questions of the day.
Lastly, of course “morality” is not “politics,” and I know of no one who makes that strong identity claim. However, politics *is* a *subset* of moral behavior, as political philopsophy is .a subset of ethics. I know how much you appreciate the knowledge of the unregenerate, especially in matters you’re not an expert on, and so I hope A. John Simmons is helpful here:
“What is distinctive about political philosophy however, is its *prescriptive* or evaluative concern with justifications, values, virtues, ideals, rights, obligations—in short, its concern with how political societies *should* be, how political policies and institutions can be justified, how we and our political officeholders ought to behave in our public lives. The principle subject matter of political philosophy can accordingly be said to be *de jure* political societies. Political philosophy can thus be aptly characterized as a branch or an application of *moral* philosophy. Not all evaluations are moral . . . but the evaluations made in political philosophy are distinctly moral. Where moral philosophy examines more general questions of how we should act and be, political philosophy examines the more specific questions of how we should act and be in our political lives and (consequently) of what kinds of political societies we should (and should not) create or oppose.”
— A . John Simmons, Political Philosophy (NY: Oxford, 2008, p.2).
So, we saw that (a) you simply *say* I’ve drawn a dubious distinction, (b) you merely say that no Old Schooler would recognize it, and (c) without anything resembling a *response* to my claims, I am prima facie justified in making the distinction, and you’re say-so otherwise does not constitute a defeater-defeater. But, (d) I argued that if we read Machen and The Old School the way you suggest, they’re either explicitly at odds with the Confession and Catechisms, or we can easily imagine a real life case where they would be. To this (e) you made a vague and ambiguous allusion to some claim about “meddling in political affairs,” which as stands is at best a red herring and at worst, bluster. Then (f) you tacitly admitted that the Confession does or can officially pronounce on “social matters” of the day, and this by entailment, thus knocking out one of the legs of your Machen quote, showing you disagree with Machen. Finally, (g) you denied a numerical identity between morality and politics, but (h) we saw that this was an attempt to make your position look stronger as the rhetorical staregy on your end appeared to be to set your position in opposition to a view no one, or no one serious, holds. Not only that, (i) we saw that there is another position in political philosophy that makes politics and political philosophy a subset of morals/ethics, and this weaker position is all that’s needed to undercut your view. That is, since you admitted that the Confession comes down on moral matters, and then you tried to get around any application from the Confession to political matters via the straw man austere identity claim, which Simmons clarified for you, and in so doing, your admission of the Confession’s official pronouncements on moral matters does or can have implications for politics, as politics and political philosophy is a prescriptive enterprise, being a subset of ethical philosophy. We also note that this isn’t some “theonomist” point, or the point of a 1K eeeeeevangelical, but the studied and considered wisdom of a political philosopher using his God-given reasoning abilities and making use of natural law.
So in closing, you say you like cherries? How ’bout dem cherries?
LikeLike
Ron: “Darryl,
Let’s see if I have this right. When challenged by fallacious arguments that avoid the point and draw invalid conclusions I’m not permitted to explain why such tactics are illogical. You like a rigged game it would seem – kinda like pitching a tent so large so as to include all of Christendom. It’s interesting to me that those that employ valid arguments:TF, Paul, Steve H. etc. can’t get out blocks with E2K proponents.”
Darryl Hart: “Ron, nothing rigged about this. It’s a matter of civility. People like to have their points responded to, not the form of their arguments criticized. BTW, it also looks like you prefer logic and use that to rig games.”
Darryl, how does Ron’s objection become a matter of civility? Also, why would you think anyone’s use of logic, not just Ron’s use of logic, is used to rig games?
LikeLike
TUaD, and so what exactly do these “many” people find so “radical”? That Roman Catholics, Muslims, and Mormons should be free to openly practice their idolatry without fear of civil punishment of any kind? Or is it actually radical to suggest the opposite? Is it radical to suggest, along with WCF 19, that Christ has sufficiently fulfilled all the law and that the moral law is all that binds the believer today? Or is it actually radical to suggest, contra WCF 19, that Christ’s death was insufficient? Is it radical to suggest that the gospel be unfettered and protected from being tied to the traditions of men and cares of this world in order that none be alienated from the gospel? Or is it radical to suggest that Jesus really does have particular politics? But these former suggestions are the ways most P&R churches understand these things. Just because you don’t like any of it and prefer the latter suggestions doesn’t mean it’s radical.
LikeLike
I was disappointed when what seemed like a promising review series by Lane and discussion with the greenbaggins mods and regulars was sidetracked by yet another argument with internet theonomists. 2k will not stand or fall based on whether it can convince someone who has yet to be convinced of the merit of the 1789 WCF.
The DRC discussion of the FV was one of the most useful Internet resources that I can remember from that controversy. An invitation-only discussion (limited to people that would realistically be asked to discuss it on a GA floor) would be of infinitely greater value than centithreads spending as much space arguing over theonomic oddities that most in NAPARC already reject, e.g., the notion that the church should instruct the state to kill unbelievers, as that for specifically 2k positions.
There may be something of an internet-wide trend away from open comments anyway. http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/11/tech/web/online-comments-sxsw/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
LikeLike
Zrim: “TUaD, and so what exactly do these “many” people find so “radical”?”
It’s a varied assortment. If you look at these blogs: Triablogue, TurretinFan, Bayly Brothers, Iron Ink, etc., and then type in R2K in the Search box, you’ll find multiple posts about the deficiencies and shortcomings of R2K.
LikeLike
Paul, actually I did argue that the distinction is dubious since there is a difference between politics and morality. I believe the Reformed hermeneutic says something about letting clear passages interpret obscure ones. The clear passages in the Confession about the church and state’s responsibilities comes not from the explication of the Decalogue, but — get this — from the Confession’s teaching on the church and the State’s responsibilities. Just because gluttony is wicked, doesn’t mean we want Michelle Obama setting our menus. But who knows, maybe you voted for Obama.
The same goes for Simmons’ point. Political philosophy is not the same as politics or statecraft. And just because a political philosopher has to make determinations about the good, doesn’t mean that a politician gets to enforce the Bible. BTW, the Bible is more than morality.
Distinctions, man!
And you never heard it from me that 2kers don’t believe in morality. You’ve been reading and believing too many of those quips about antinomianism. We do believe in morality, but how to execute it is the issue. Again, just because I believe it is wrong to break the Sabbath, doesn’t mean I go next store and tell the kids to stop watching the NCAA games.
And I thought philosophers were supposed to be smart. I guess your cherries were a bit sour.
LikeLike
Mike, thanks for the link.
LikeLike
Darryl, you did *not* _argue_ that the distinction was dubious. First, you *asserted* that morality is not politics. Second, your assertion has nothing to do with the distinction between *mere* pronouncements and *official* pronouncements. In fact, to prove that your assertion can’t undermine the distinction, one can draw the distinction between pronouncements that are neither moral nor political. Since once can. it cannot be the case that your claim, never mind you never *argued* it, undermines the distinction I drew. However, it is telling that you think your one sentence assertion that “morality is not politics” counts as an *argument*.
Second, *nothing* I said regarding the distinction *in Machen* can be undermined by the Confession’s statements on church and State. Furthermore, *nothing* in the Confession’s statement on church and State undermines the point I made from the Catechism’s pronouncements on the 6th commandment. Nothing. Nothing in Ch. 23 undermines a whit of what I said. I can’t imagine how you think Ch.23 could undermine what I’ve said so far. But as always, you’re free to *argue* that matter.
Moreover, Ch. 23 makes official pronouncements on political and social issues! For example, Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation would disagree with Ch. 23, and the debate is a social matter. And even if it didn’t pronounce on such matters, we can *easily* imagine circumstances arising in political and social issues where the official pronouncements of Ch.23 would weigh in on the matter.
Now, you brought up gluttony. First, you admit that it’s wicked. So, if it’s a social issue of the day whether it is or is not wicked, then it looks as if you admit the Confession and Catechism “officially pronounce” on the *social* matter. Second, surely you don’t think that anyone is arguing that *any* moral issue is a political issue? So your point is a straw man. However, you will note that the Catechism questions I cited, viz., on the 6th commandment, said it was our *duty* to undertake *any* _legal_ endeavor to protect life. Now, we can *easily* see how this weighs in on political issues; in fact, we can *easily* imagine a circumstance arising where it would be the *duty* of a Reformed Christian like you, i.e., one who says he believes life begins at conception, to *vote* a certain way. So, you’ve only dodged the question with your gluttony comment and totally ignored the issue I brought up, apparently thinking that if I don’t think the government should make laws about gluttony, I am logically committed to the claim that they should not make laws about *any* moral matter.
Now, I know that political philosophy is not politics or statecraft. However, politics and statecraft are *visions* of political philosophies. They are instantiations of a political philosophy regarding how life *should* be ordered. Indeed, your claim that the church *ought* not get involved in political matters, is to make a *political* prescription. And of course, I never said politicians have to enforce the Bible. Did I make that claim, Darryl? No. In fact, all I’m arguing is that the the Confession makes claims that entail official pronouncements on political and social issues of our day. You are swinging at thin air. You’re not tracking the argument I’m giving you.
Pay attention, man!
Lastly, I never said you don’t believe in morality. Where did you get that idea? You make a claim about where I’m getting an idea from that I never promulgated. Is that perhaps a Freudian slip? You then bring up the Sabbath, and I’m not clear for what. I am not arguing something I believe (maybe I do maybe I don’t). My argument is pretty clear to anyone who chooses to read rather than skim (as you admit you do). I argued that *your Confession* doesn’t jibe with what you’re saying. That’s why I told you to choose between your Machen and your Confession.
So, feel free to rail about how dumb I am, but please, for Pete’s sake, try to grasp the argument you’ve been given. This shouldn’t be too hard for a smart guy.
LikeLike
Check it out, Darryl: “Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord,”
Get that? it’s an official pronouncement claiming that the civil magistrate has a normative duty to protect Christian churches; thus, those magistrates that do not do so (or could possibly not do so) are in violation of a duty and, per the Confession, they ought not have the political machinery in play that allows them to do so. If they matter were to be debated socially or politically, the Confession would take a stand on the matter and would have already “officially pronounced” on the matter.
No doubt, the Confession says the magistrate has a duty to protect all persons, even unbelievers. But to raise that point would be to miss the point. For ‘persons’ and ‘unbelievers’ are not “the church of our common lord,” and we can *easily* imagine a magistrate politically debating a social issue of the day as to whether they have a duty to “protect the church of Christians.” Indeed, many Muslim countries don’t think so. Thus, the Confession “officially pronounces” on the political and social issues of those countries. It claims they ought to do something else politically.
Now ah knows ah’s dumb n awl, but dat seems perty clear tuh meh.
LikeLike
Zrim: “TUaD, and so what exactly do these “many” people find so “radical”?”
Zrim, in addition to the list above, you could also examine Ron’s blog called the “Reformed Apologist.” Here’s a list of posts from Reformed Apologist: R2K.
LikeLike
Paul, you’re hyperventilating again. Have you been reading Richard on Edwards.
I understand your point. You don’t need four graphs unless you’re off your meds. But Machen’s still stands. Just because the Confession says the magistrate is to protect the church (and other religions) it does not lay out a policy (you know, policy is close to politics). In Machen’s day it was Prohibition. The Bible says drunkenness is a sin. It doesn’t prescribe whether a federated republic should have an amendment to the Constitution or whether the federal government should make alcohol illegal. In Hodge’s day it was whether states versus the national government’s authority. They Bible says the magistrate is ordained by God but it didn’t speak to the thorny debate over the relations between the states and the federal government.
That’s the point, Paul. And it is fairly basic to most biblical instruction. The Bible may reveal certain truths, but it is often silent about the enforcement or execution of such ideals. The same goes for politics. We may believe in liberty. But how to preserve it is another matter.
LikeLike
Oh, got it. Now it’s that the Church should not lay out detailed, robust, fine-grained, many-paged public policies. Gottcha. I learned a new synonym: “pronouncement” = robust, detailed, many-paged public policy.” Boy, am I sure glad I have a smart guy like you to learn from.
So here’s the conclusion of our little kerfuffle:
Darryl admits Paul was right that the Confession makes official pronouncements on social and public issues, when ‘pronouncement’ is understood in its common sense term.
Paul admits Darryl is right that the Church shouldn’t issue detailed, robust, fine-grained, many-paged public policies, even though Darryl never told anyone he was making a highly obscurantist and idiosyncratic point.
I argued that at *some* level, political and social issues of the day are officially pronounced on, even if by entailment. Darryl comes back after numerous back-n-forth’s, “Yeah, but they shouldn’t put forth things like the 1000+ page Patient Protection and Affordable Care act. Oooo, high five me on that one, Zrim. Burn!” Yeah, okay Darryl, good point.
(Btw, you brought up drunkenness, but I see you still didn’t deal with the point *I* brought up from the Catechism’s remarks on the 6th commandment, where they mentioned *lawful* endeavors, which, in certain occasions, could require that Christians vote, or perhaps even publicly demonstrate in a certain way.)
LikeLike
Paul, you were wrong in your reading of the WCF because you didn’t harmonize what your read as “pronouncements” with what the Confession actually says in Chap. 31.
You’re also wrong about the implications of the 6th commandment. What 2ker says that Christians may no “vote” or “publicly demonstrate”?
You’re still tilting at windmills. They have medications for that.
LikeLike
So, Paul, what this comes down to is your irritation as a pro-lifer at the suggestion that believers are at liberty to vote in ways you and I might not on reproductive legislation. But I’m still not sure what keeps your logic from saying any and all political views (in addition to doctrinal views and personal lives) that intersect at any juncture of the Decalogue are subject to spiritual scrutiny.
But have you ever heard of affirming or opposing political views politically instead of spiritually? So if you don’t agree with Bob’s political views them oppose them politically—when he pulls the “yes” lever then you pull the “no” lever. It’s a simple concept, but apparently too profound for your street-fighter logic to grasp.
LikeLike
Darryl,
If you think I need to harmonize something, please lay out, explicitly, the apparent logical tension you believe is there. I need your help because I don’t see it (being dumb and all, as you say).
On the 6th commandment, how am I wrong? You seem to say I’m right. The argument was that the statements on the 6th commandment could entail that a 2Ker would have to vote in a specific way. You should know, Darryl, that your friend Zrim has denied this. But I don’t need any 2Ker to deny it, for that wasn’t my argument. My argument was only that the Confession “officially pronounced,” or could easily entail an official pronouncement.
You’re still missing the point and making bad arguments, unfortunately, there’s no meds for that.
LikeLike
No, Zrim, that’s not it and it’s not what it “comes down to.” I realize that when one doesn’t know how to argue well, or follow arguments well, one must engage in straw manning. There’s no point to respond to you because you don’t actually want to dialogue or learn.
LikeLike
Paul, the Catechism — umpteenth time — makes no pronouncement on the politics of abortion. Only a philosopher could misread that.
LikeLike
Paul, not to get into the middle of your discussion with Zrim, but I can’t help but remark on your point about wanting to learn since it seems to me that you come here most often in a spirit of competition, not of conversation. I don’t expect you to agree with the points here. But is it the case that you need to prove you are right and others are wrong?
LikeLike
Darryl, I never said it did. Pay attention to the *argument*, for the umpteenth time. Study some philosophy, it’ll allow you to read more carefully and pay attention to key words and key qualifications.
Re Zrim: I came here in the spirit of answering a question you asked. The conflict started because, apparently, you had your mind made up that no harmonization was possible. I came here and saw your quote from Machen, and then I threw out a possible reading, one which harmonizes things for TUAD. At that point, you resorted to the usual: missing the point, not engaging the argument, misunderstanding the point, making non-sequiturs, calling me dumb, etc. You then have the nerve to say I “come here in the spirit of competition, not conversation.” It is actually those who straw man, consistently misunderstand, and seem to delight in grand adventures in missing the point that don’t seem to want conversation.
LikeLike
Paul, you said the catechism speaks to moral and social questions. Abortion is a social and political question. Now you’re telling me the catechism doesn’t make pronouncements?
My head is spinning. I need some meds.
LikeLike
Can I ask a question? Chapter 31 talks about the civil magistrate asking the synods for an opinion on a subject. So, for instance, over here in Blighty out government has been “consulting” the pubic on allowing gay marriage. If the church were asked to be a part of this “consultation” would it be in keeping with 2k for the general assembly to produce an official opinion on the matter?
It also refers to petitions on matters extraordinary. Is there a rule in determining what is extraordinary? I would have thought the civil war an extraordinary matter, or would it have to be something specifically affecting the church? (Could gay marriage come under that?)
Apologies, that’s two questions.
LikeLike
Alexander, to your first question, sure. If the state asks the church for advice, go for it. Number 2: I think an extraordinary case would be one where the consciences of Christians are bound in an unbiblical way by the state. If such a circumstance arises — the recent health care legislation may be an example — then the church should try to protect her officers and members as much as possible before suffering for their convictions.
LikeLike
Alexander,
Unfortunately the extraordinary clause doesnt have much qualification other than “issues of conscience”. Since everyones consciene is different, opinions on what constitutes extraordinary can be all over the map.
LikeLike
Darryl, notice the qualifiers “if you hold to a premise about the status of the unborn” and “by entailment.” Or, recall my claim about the Muslim country that did not protect the church of our common Lord. Now, the Confession does not mention that particular Muslim country; however, it officially pronounces on the matter *via entailment*. Here’s how the derivation would look:
1. If a current political position, P, says that X is permissible, but the Confession says that not-X is obligatory, then the Confession has officially pronounced on P. (assumption)
2. X is a country with a civil magistrate. (assumption)
3. Country X holds the current political position that its civil magistrate is not obligated to protect the church of our common Lord. (assumption)
4. The Confession says that all civil magistrates are obligated to protect the church of our common Lord (Confessional premise).
5. The Confession says that the civil magistrates of country X are obligated to protect the church of our common Lord. (from 2 and 4)
6. Country X holds the current political position that its civil magistrate is not obligated to protect the church of our common Lord and the Confession says that the civil magistrates of country X are obligated to protect the church of our common Lord. (from 3 and 5)
7. The confession has officially pronounced on the political issue of 6 (from 1 and 6).
I can do similar things with abortion, etc.
LikeLike
But I also wonder whether there is something to be said for being cautious even when asked to weigh in on matters on which the church isn’t qualified to speak and that may have no direct bearing on the conscience of the church. Maybe the church actually does the state a favor by not indulging certain questions. I think of a congregant asking the pastor for political advice–maybe the wise answer is that, while he may have his views, and while perhaps informal conversation is one thing, it’s not really his place or calling to advise or publish them. In both cases, maybe “I dunno, it’s your own responsibility so you figure it out.”
LikeLike