Law and order

A quick follow-up to my post on Darryl Hart. Among other things, he said:

If I break the civil law, I should be punished. God gave us authorities to uphold the law and maintain order and peace.

Problem with Hart's justification is that Paul doesn't use that rationale in Rom 13. Paul doesn't frame the issue in terms of law, order, and domestic tranquilly. He doesn't appeal to legal categories, but moral categories. Paul talks about the duties of a magistrate in reference to those who do right and those who do wrong, including the magistrate's duty to facilitate the ability of constituents do right, and punish those who do wrong. 

So Hart is using an argument that Paul doesn't use. Hart is oblivious to what he's interjecting into the text from outside the text. He's transplanted an extraneous justification into the text. 

Moreover, while there's a sense in which I'm sure that Paul believed in law, order, and domestic tranquility, that doesn't mean Paul is operating with Hart's legal positivism and totalitarian concept of the state. Paul doesn't absolutize legality or social control. Rather, it's about incentivizing good and disincentivizing evil. Hart, by contrast, turns Paul's priorities on their head. 

Two-kingdom fascism

Darryl Hart is a leader of the 2-Kingdoms position. Here are some comments he left on a very long thread: 

D. G. Hart says:
Nero did not violate God’s law if he executed Christians who obeyed God rather than man. If Paul continued to preach after the emperor said he may not, then Nero was doing what God ordained government to do. Christians don’t get a pass from civil law just because they follow a higher law. 

The question wasn’t whether Nero should light up his gardens with Christians. It was whether Nero executed Christians. 

That is what God ordained the magistrate to do, right? Just because a believer has a special relationship with God doesn’t let the believer disobey the magistrate’s laws. Christianity is not a license for civil disobedience. 

If a law is unjust or if we must obey God rather than men, then we suffer the consequences of disobedience. That’s what the apostles did. They didn’t form political action committees to overturn Roman laws.
Paul doesn’t mention justice. He doesn’t mention God’s law. He doesn’t qualify the magistrate’s authority. They are God’s ministers – period. 

So you disobey God’s word. You refuse to do what Paul says. Submit to the unjust emperor. 

I am saying that I follow what Paul said in Rom 13. God wants his people to submit to those in authority, those whom he has established. 

If I break the civil law, I should be punished. God gave us authorities to uphold the law and maintain order and peace. It’s disorderly and unpeaceful if you think you can pick and choose which laws to obey because you have Jesus in your heart. 

https://oldlife.org/2017/01/04/is-donald-trump-mainstreaming-apostasy/

i) That's the reductio ad absurd of 2K. Hart's fascist interpretation of Rom 13 represents a moral inversion of Rom 13. 

ii) As I've pointed out in the past, it's naive to suppose that in Rom 13, Paul is stating everything he thought about the issue at hand. Paul is writing to Christians in the capital of the Roman Empire. What if his letter was intercepted by the Roman authorities? For the sake of Roman Christians, he has to be guarded in what he says. That doesn't mean he says things he doesn't believe, but it does mean he probably leaves some things unsaid. 

iii) In addition, that's more than sheer speculation. He was a firm believer in the OT. He surely didn't believe Ahab, Jezebel, and Athaliah had a civic duty to punish Jews who refused to worship Baal. And he certainly didn't believe Jews had a civic duty to submit to the idolatrous edicts of Ahab, Jezebel, or Athaliah. Likewise, Paul would surely endorse the civil disobedience of the Jewish midwives (Exod 1). So there are unstated caveats in Rom 13.

iv) Hart acts as though the divine institution of government means God has delegated absolute, autonomous authority to the state, so that rulers are entitled to do whatever they see fit. Hart has an amoral conception of civil authority, by separating law from justice. 

But in Paul's understanding, the duty of the civil magistrate is to punish wrongdoers, not simply lawbreakers. The civil magistrate isn't merely or primarily a law enforcer, but an agent of justice. As such, he has no duty to act unjustly. Indeed, he has a duty to act justly and refrain from injustice. 

v) Hart says "Paul doesn’t mention justice. He doesn’t qualify the magistrate’s authority. They are God’s ministers – period."

How could Hart miss that? Perhaps Hart is committing the word-concept fallacy. Does he imagine that if Paul doesn't use the word "justice," then the idea can't be present? Yet Paul says the role of the magistrate is to reward or facilitate those who do good and punish those who do wrong. What is that if not the essence of justice? 

vi) Paul doesn't say or imply that Christians have a duty to submit to rulers in virtue of their sheer, unconditional authority. To the contrary, Paul specifically qualifies the legitimate mandate of civil authority. 

vii) In addition, as one commentator notes:

The authority is a servant of God, but it has the purpose of serving its constituents in the accomplishment of their good actions (Rom 13:4)…The authority is a servant for the constituent so that the person can accomplish what is good. This reconceptualizes authority…[It]  has the just purposes not of perpetuating its own power and authority but of serving its constituents by enabling them to do what is good. S. Porter The Letter to the Romans (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), 246.

The fact that God ordained government is not a blank check for any specific exercise of power. Hart's inference is like saying God ordained sex, therefore any kind of sexual activity is divinely sanctioned. In Hart's Looking Glass world, God ordained the magistrate to execute those who are doing God's will, as if God is acting at cross-purposes with himself. 

vii) Does Hart think Christians have a divine obligation to commit evil if the state commands what God forbids? He makes statements to that effect. Does he think 1C Christians had a divinely-imposed duty to submit to emperor worship? 

viii) Perhaps Hart would concede that there are situations where Christians have a higher obligation to break the law. If so, Hart seems to be saying the magistrate has a duty to punish Christians for breaking a law which Christians have a duty to break. 

To take a concrete example, Hart either thinks German Christians had a duty not to protect their Jewish neighbors, or if they had a duty to protect their Jewish neighbors, Nazi authorities had a duty to punish Christians who sheltered Jews. 

ix) Of course we need to be prepared to face the consequences of civil disobedience. But that's beside the point. That hardly means the state has a right or duty to punish civil disobedience when the state commands what God forbids or forbids what God commands. 

Does Hart think the state is supposed to punish people in situations where people are supposed to defy the state? How coherent is that? 

No Bible for Christian Academia?

http://bylogos.blogspot.com/2013/10/no-bible-for-christian-academia.html

Is 2 kingdom 2 queer?

When Lee Irons posted Misty's now infamous case for homosexual marriage on his church website, he eventually lost his job over the ensuing firestorm. Now, years later, here's what Horton has to say:

Third, in my own wrestling with the political debate, love of neighbor looms large. Some on the right may offer arguments that reflect more the same demand for special rights as those on the left of the issue. The legal aspects of that are beyond my pay-grade—and they are important. Others may treat this issue as irrelevant: “Look, it doesn’t affect me. I just don’t want to live next door to some creepy home like that.” However, in terms of specifically Christian witness, love of neighbor (as God’s image-bearers) should be front-and-center. We have to care about our non-Christian neighbors (gay or straight) because God cares and calls us to contribute to the common good.

The challenge there is that two Christians who hold the same beliefs about marriage as Christians may appeal to neighbor-love to support or to oppose legalization of same-sex marriage.

On one hand, it may be said that if we can no longer say that “Judeo-Christian” ethics are part of our shared worldview as a republic, then the ban seems arbitrary. Why isn’t there a campaign being waged to ban providing legal benefits to unmarried heterosexual couples? Or to make divorce more difficult? It just seems more symbolic than anything else: it looks like our last-gasp effort to enforce our own private morality on the public. On the other hand, we might argue that every civilization at its height, regardless of religion, has not only privileged marriage of one man and one woman but has outlawed alternative arrangements. Same-sex marriage means adoption, which subjects other human beings to a parental relationship that they did not choose for themselves. Are we loving our LGBT neighbors—or their adopted children—or the wider society of neighbors by accommodating a move that will further destroy the fabric of society?

I take the second view, but I recognize the former as wrestling as much as I’m trying to with the neighbor-love question. Legal benefits (“partnerships”) at least allowed a distinction between a contractual relationship and the covenant of marriage. However, the only improvement that “marriage” brings is social approval—treating homosexaul and heterosexual unions as equal. Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security.

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/05/11/should-we-oppose-same-sex-marriage/

What's the substantive difference between civil marriage and civil unions/domestic partnerships? Why was Lee (rightly) drummed out of the OPC (although he only lost by one vote) while Horton's compromise position is acceptable?

Natural law and homosexuality...

http://baylyblog.com/blog/2013/04/natural-law-and-homosexuality

In Defense of Christian Activism

http://www.frame-poythress.org/in-defense-of-christian-activism-vs-michael-horton-and-meredith-kline/

Coming to terms in the “two kingdoms” wars?

http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/the-two-kingdoms-at-covenant-college-toning-down-the-rhetoric/

2-Kingdom abortion proponents

On issues like abortion and homosexuality, the liberal establishment tries to gag Christians by preemptive ruling those issues off-limits. How dare you even raise the issue! They try to silence dissent by declaring their pet issues out-of-bounds in political discourse.

Of course, this makes it difficult to even get a fair hearing. A prolife politician (e.g. Richard Mourdock), church-planter (e.g. Tim Keller), or apologist (e.g. Scott Klusendorf) has to spend of a lot of time first taking out the garbage just to make room for rational debate. In the public sphere, they have to deal with an audience that’s often ignorant, hostile, and bigoted. It takes a lot of time just to peel away all the layers of prejudice.

Someone in this situation has to cultivate a constituency from the ground up. Spend time disarming knee-jerk reactions. Spend time deprogramming the godless cultural-conditioning which many people receive in college. Spend time educating them on history, theology, and ethics.

That’s a necessary, but time-consuming process. As such, someone in this situation has to be very politic about his tactics and rhetoric.

By contrast, it shouldn’t be necessary in intramural Christian discussion to engage in these elaborate softening-up exercises. The church is not the world. We set the bar higher. There ought be far less tolerance for the attitude we encounter in the liberal media or academia.

Of course, a pastor still needs to make a case. But he’s not starting from scratch. Christian presuppositions will be a given.

Recently, Joe Carter and Justin Taylor both posted on the Richard Mourdock kerfuffle. Predictably, two commenters (“Lou G” & “JR”) rushed in to oppose their consistent prolife position. And they claim to be professing Christians. They are to the church what Log Cabin Republicans are to the GOP.

Not coincidentally, JR is using the code language of the 2-kingdoms paradigm, promoted by some WSC professors. This illustrates the pernicious, corrupting influence of the 2-kingdoms paradigm. Instead of defending the unborn, or defending defenders of the unborn, they attack defenders of the unborn.

JR

October 26, 2012 at 3:14 pm

So, to restate my position, as posted in TGC blog, this difficult issue ought to remain in the arena of Christian conscience. 1 – I do not see a command in scripture that requires it and 2 – a legal requirement for a woman to make this decision goes beyond what is ethically right to impose on another.

JR

October 26, 2012 at 12:56 PM

…it's no wonder that even fair-minded and moderately conservative people regard our blanket application of Biblical principles to very difficult issues such as this as irrational and possibly laughable.

My assertion is that this decision is a matter of Christian conscience and is not governed by a specific commandment in the scriptures. Thanks.

JR

October 26, 2012 at 7:12 PM

If we are going to bind consciences and hold people legally accountable, we have to make sure that we are not simply applying a principle, as we choose to practice it.

JR

October 26, 2012 at 7:38 pm

The thing that we cannot get away from is the fact that the extreme position that doesn’t allow for exceptions requires us to make matters of conscience a legally binding requirement.

Here’s a key point:

At the end of the day, only the Christian worldview would compell someone to act in the way we are trying to mandate for all people. Very different from natural law issues, which are obvious to all regardless of whether they have a Christian basis or not. (Of course, that sort of two kingdom thinking, which I know some people here don’t really buy into.)

Nearsighted shepherds

The Chic-fil-A kerfuffle exposed a lot a moral confusion in some Christian circles. For this reason I think it’s worth discussing. Not because that particular controversy is all-important, but because it illustrates a larger problem among some Christians who ought to know better. With that in mind, I’m going to comment on some statements in this post:

http://reformedforum.org/am-i-chicken-for-not-attending-chick-fil-a-appreciation-day/

Here I hope to offer a discerning third option.

How about both?

Support CFA for their stand AND love homosexuals and unbelievers (yes, including liberals!). After all, we do believe in both common grace and the antithesis. We believe that being a Christian in the world often means taking a stand for what is right, even if it means our marginalization. On the other hand, as Christians we believe that we should love our neighbors, and not marginalize them (even gays and liberals).

Supporting a Christian business owner is nice, but not necessary for the advancement of the Kingdom.

However, if you think the reaction against the stand of the COO of CFA is ridiculous and non-sense (as it surely is), then go. Go as a person with common sense. Go as an American who believes in freedom of speech. Go in good conscience simply because their waffle fries are pretty good. Go because you think the mayor of Chicago is a moron. Go as a Christian, if you are a Christian, and take a stand for biblical principle. But don’t think that this will advance the cause of Christ in the Gospel. Taking a stand for biblical principle is a must for a Christian, but it won’t save any souls. Yet, it may, in fact, advance the cause of common grace – and there is value to that.

There is a place for the Christian to fight the cultural war. But we need to always remember how and why we fight it. God has given us weapons to fight, as Christians. And its not long drive-in lines at fast food joints. Our weapons are spiritual, they are not carnal. Numbers are good and helpful in fighting the cultural wars, but they do not win the battle. Only the Gospel of God’s free grace in Christ can and will do that.

James J. Cassidy is the pastor of Calvary Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Ringoes, NJ. He also serves as Vice President of Reformed Forum and is a PhD candidate at Westminster Theological Seminary.

Several issues:

i) Before I go any further, I’m not contending that Christians had a moral or spiritual obligation to participate in Chick-fil-A appreciation day. That’s not the thesis I’m defending in this post.

ii) Why does Pastor Cassidy cast the issue in terms of what “advances the kingdom”? No doubt that sounds very pious, but let’s think about that for a moment. Should everything Christians do be with a view to advancing the kingdom? Does deodorant advance the kingdom? Does toothpaste advance the kingdom? Does bathroom tissue advance the kingdom? Does buying a gallon of milk advance the kingdom? Does playing catch in the backyard with your 10-year-old advance the kingdom? Does making love to your wife four times a week advance the kingdom? Does owning a tabby cat advance the kingdom? Does trimming your toenails advance the kingdom?

Surely devout Christians do many things that don’t directly advance the kingdom. Surely devout Christians do many things that may or may not indirectly advance the kingdom.

I notice that Pastor Cassidy wears a tie. Does that advance the kingdom?

Why do Christian leaders like Pastor Cassidy make glib statements that invite so many obvious counterexamples?

iii) Or take his statement that “Supporting a Christian business owner is nice, but not necessary for the advancement of the Kingdom.”

Well, pastoring an OPC church isn’t necessary for the advancement of the kingdom. If his OPC church in Jersey didn’t exist, the kingdom would manage to advance in its absence. Being a PhD candidate at WTS isn’t necessary for the advancement of the kingdom.

iv) Or take his statement that “as Christians we believe that we should love our neighbors, and not marginalize them (even gays and liberals).”

Yes, we should marginalize the political power of liberals and homosexuals. They have a harmful agenda. And part of neighbor love is protecting your neighbor from a harmful ideology. Why is Pastor Cassidy unable to draw that elementary connection?

v) Or take his statement that “God has given us weapons to fight, as Christians. And its not long drive-in lines at fast food joints.”

Why not? Why not view that as a God-given opportunity? Shouldn’t an OPC pastor have a greater appreciation of providence?

vi) Or take his statement that “Numbers are good and helpful in fighting the cultural wars, but they do not win the battle. Only the Gospel of God’s free grace in Christ can and will do that.”

Just preaching the Gospel won’t win the battle, either. Not everyone who hears the Gospel believes the Gospel. Only Christ will win the battle when he returns on Judgment Day.

vii) Likewise, defending Christian liberty does advance the kingdom. Let’s take two obvious examples:

a) It’s currently legal for Christian parents to homeschool their kids. That advances the kingdom. That promotes the cause of Christ. But if Christians didn’t fight for the right to educate their kids, liberals would take it away from them. That would represent a setback for the kingdom.

b) Likewise, it’s currently legal for Christian public school students to organize a Bible club on school premises. That advances the kingdom. That’s an opportunity to share the gospel with their peers. To save souls.

But they wouldn’t have that legal right unless Christians continue to defend it.

Why is Pastor Cassidy so shortsighted that he can’t see ten feet in front of him? There’s no excuse for Christian pastors to be so undiscerning. It's time to wise up.

Baptists, John the Baptist, and the two kingdoms

Both the Chic-fil-a kerfuffle and the campaign season generally raise the question of Christian political activism. Among some Baptists, as well as Presbyterians of the 2k variety, Christian political activism is often frowned upon. In that vein, here’s a striking comparison:

3For Herod had seized John and bound him and put him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, 4 because John had been saying to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her” (Mt 14:3-4).

Here John the Baptist speaks out against the sexual immorality of a public figure. A powerful politician.

Will the Real Geneva Please Stand Up?

http://calvinistinternational.com/2012/06/25/will-the-real-geneva-please-stand-up/

Neo-2kers Confound

Another strange 2K post on the matter 

http://thechristiancurmudgeonmo.blogspot.com/2012/06/going-all-way.html

Consider these neo-2kers. They're an odd bunch, I say. Well, at least most of them. At least the most prolific and bloggerific of them. Check it out:

I'm no theonomist, but theonomists are treated like dirt by these guys. They're told they "deny the gospel." They're blamed for almost all that ails Reformedom. They're mocked and ridiculed. Theonomic pastors are called "Rabi." They're called inconsistent Pelagians for their law/gospel confusion.

Similarly with "transformationalists" and "neo-Calvinists" and "worldviewers." If you read neo-2Kers and didn't know anything about those groups, you get the impression that they're silly, confused, stupid, and perhaps wicked. Guys like Darryl Hart, the above blogger, Zrim, etc., have some very strong and harsh things to say to them. They mock and ridicule them to no end. They clearly and obviously caricature them. For example, if you say you're a Van Tillian or believe in a Christian worldview, here's something you might hear: "But you believe regeneration raises the I.Q.." (actual quote by Darryl Hart).

Also, transformers and worldviewers and presuppers are all told that they value philosophy over humble submission to the Bible. That they think they can bring heaven down to earth. That they think the Bible is a manual for things like plumbing, and so they seek to impose it on all areas of life in a blueprint fashion. So motives can be guessed at, even when they've been clearly, forcefully, and ubiquitously denied.  But Carl Trueman makes some comments about probable motives for Stellman, or probable causal precursors, and what happens? He's condemned and scolded by neo-2Kers. "How dare he speculate!" "How dare he talk about motives when he's not inside Stellman's head." The hypocrisy is stunning. How do we make sense of it?

And, heck, you'd better hope you're not named "John Frame." You'll be called a "relativist" for promulgating "triperspectivalism." Worse, you'd be told that your views are "revolutionary," but not in a good way; rather, "revolutionary in the way the French were revolutionary in 1789" (direct quote from R.S. Clark). This is all rather light compared to some of the choice comments neo-2Kers have for Frame.

But, repeatedly, Jason Stellman is treated with respect and dignity. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, of course. But consider: Stellman is coddled and protected by neo-2Kers. Any comment taken to be disrespectful is met with strong force and condemnation. Indeed, some 2kers are saying that they're trying to defend Stellman (Zrim). If someone speculates or offers reasons for possible motives for Stellman's change, they're roundly rebuked. Told they're out of line. Told to show some "respect" and act with "comportment." We need to "pray for Stellman" and "love" Stellman. Have similar remarks been made by them about Frame?

Why (and why not)? You see, Stellman was an elder in a Reformed church, and most importantly, he defended Confessionalism and 2K—acts which cover a multitude of sins, apparently—so the 2kers rail and bellyache that he's not getting treated with dignity and respect. He's called "honorable" and "courageous." He's treated as a hero with integrity. Fine. But consider Frame again. Frame is an ordained elder, but that doesn't get him any respect, it gets him the opposite. Frame writes a book critical of neo-2K/Confessionalism, and prominent 2kers write that they are "shocked" and "saddened" by it. It "represents a new low in intra-Reformed polemics." But when one of their own denies SS and SF, they defend and protect him, laud him and glad hand him. He is "thoughtful" and "engaging," even when "we disagree."

Some people started off their response to Stellman by saying they were "shocked" and "saddened" by his recent stance, and Stellman declaimed, "Is that how you start off all your conversations? You don't want a dialogue." Many 2Kers cheered this response and jeered the Reformed commenter who began his comment that way. But consider how they speak to 1Kers, transformationalists, theonomists, etc. 

Or, consider how they talk to and about baptists. Or The Gospel Coalition. They write posts with titles like, "Young, Restless, and Dunked." But what if someone wrote a post with the title, "Beautiful, Bald, and Searching for a Funny Hat to Cover it Up." They'd be called "uncivil." Why? Because it appears that the worst thing to be is some kind of 1Ker, or transformer, or worldviewer, or homeschooler, or Framean, or Bahnsenian. What else explains the blatant, obvious, and undeniable hypocrisy? How can they explain this clearly inconsistent behavior?

Is He Talking to Us?

http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/is-he-talking-to-us/

Thoughts on an Impending Conversion Which (Should Have Been) Foretold

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2012/06/thoughts-on-an-impending-conve.php

2K or Not 2K? That is the Question

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/2k-or-not-2k-question-review-david-vandrunens-living-gods-two-kingdoms/

Calvin and the Two Kingdoms

http://calvinistinternational.com/2012/05/29/calvin-2k-1/

http://calvinistinternational.com/2012/05/29/calvin-2k-2/

Military chaplains

Dr. Hart:

 

I’m certainly supportive of your advocacy of 2K theology, but the examples you use here seem misplaced to me.

 

You begin by noting the compromising entanglements that Chaplains face in the military. These entanglements may exist in some form, but the manner in which they exist, in my experience, has never been due to problems with our country’s law or our military’s doctrine (admittedly, the effects of DADT’s repeal haven’t had time to take effect yet). In the Army at least, there is a clear distinction made between performing religious services and providing them. The former is done by Chaplains because the state has hired them to preserve the free-exercise rights of service members. The provide function is done by Chaplains as an explicit expression of their particular faith tradition. These two hats that Chaplains wear has always seemed to me to comport quite nicely with 2K ideas: on behalf of the state, we ensure the free exercise of religion for all Warriors, and on behalf of our denominations, we conduct religious services in line with our faith traditions. Honesty of course requires me to admit that there are pressures for Chaplains to lose their denominational distinctives. But I would simply point out that those pressures really don’t have anything to do with current law or policy (again, let’s wait to see what happens with DADT’s repeal). In fact, those pressures are in spite of them. In my opinion, any pressure to conform results from the overwhelming presence of evangelical, I-don’t-have-an-ecclesiology-or-a-system-of-doctrine Chaplains in our nation’s military. They as a group hate putting people in “boxes” (lots of stories I could share here, but won’t for space). So those issues are not policy driven, but people driven. Certainly, taking Reformational Chaplains out of the mix isn’t the answer to that problem. As a parting shot on Chaplains in the military, we have to remember that the military isn’t the Church. So Frame’s shock-and-awe at a Presbyterian Chaplain’s appreciation for the faith of his Pentecostal colleague shouldn’t seem so scandalous. They were not a part of the same denomination, as Frame noted, so what’s the big deal about affirming the catholicity of the faith despite some people’s wacky backgrounds (see Peter Wallace here, http://opc.org/os.html?article_id=128)?

 

Your use of women in the military also seemed to miss the mark. You rightly observe that women have the right to self-defense, but you wrongly confuse that, I think, with their participation in military service, as if “tactical” issues were the only thing at stake (it’s not clear what you meant by that). The truth is that women serving in the military poses a serious moral dilemma, whether arguing from the perspective of natural law or God’s moral law. First, it requires men to reprogram their protective instincts toward women. If caught in a firefight (perhaps this is what you had in mind earlier), male soldiers must repress any urge to provide special protection to their female counterparts, simply expecting them to expose themselves to danger like anyone else engaging in combat with the enemy. How does this change men when they come back to their wives after a deployment? Second, it requires women to reprogram their natural nurturing motives. They must teach themselves to function among men as men, repressing the beauty of their femininity so as to conform to the aggressive and hard character of military culture. How does this affect their relationships with the husbands and children? Third, it creates a sexual-relational environment that promotes sexual immorality. The truth about college campuses is that putting men and women in close proximity to each other for extended periods of time tends to lead to all kinds of debauchery. Guess what a Forward Operating Base often becomes? You guessed it. WLC 99 clearly teaches that establishing conditions that foster sin is in itself sinful. Nature certainly teaches something similar.

 

Again, I appreciate your advocacy of 2K. I just wish you had picked better examples, or at least better understood the ones you picked. As always, I would be interested in receiving your feedback.

 

Chaplain (CPT) Ken Honken

http://oldlife.org/2011/10/one-way-to-tell-the-difference-between-two-kingdom-theology-and-its-critics/#comment-38684

Tuininga’s Kingdoms and the Reformed Tradition

http://calvinistinternational.com/2012/05/14/tuiningas-kingdoms-and-the-reformed-tradition-a-response-to-the-two-kingdoms-and-the-reformed-tradition/

The Consistent and the Confused: Two Kinds of Two-Kingdoms

http://calvinistinternational.com/2012/05/07/protestantism-and-liberalism/

HT: John Bugay

Presumed innocent

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/guilty.htm