Thread: Article Critical of "Two Kingdom" view

What do you think about the following article by Gary DeMar, which criticizes the two kingdom approach to society?

First, I think that if his depiction of Reformed "two kingdoms" theology is correct, it("two kingdoms" theology) certainly needs extensive work.

Secondly, if not, my understanding of Reformed TK theology needs work--well, it does even if that is correct.

That's actually what I'm studying right now--two kingdoms--so can anyone recommend some good freely available MP3s on the biblical foundation of TK?

two kingdoms podcast i've listened to the first two.. they are awesome.

Originally Posted by Skyler

First, I think that if his depiction of Reformed "two kingdoms" theology is correct, it("two kingdoms" theology) certainly needs extensive work.

Secondly, if not, my understanding of Reformed TK theology needs work--well, it does even if that is correct.

That's actually what I'm studying right now--two kingdoms--so can anyone recommend some good freely available MP3s on the biblical foundation of TK?

My husband benefited from Dr. VanDrunen's inaugural address which deals with TK. You can find it on the WSC website; I can't seem to link to it rightly.

Originally Posted by Repre5entYHWH

two kingdoms podcast i've listened to the first two.. they are awesome.

Can you download them though? I haven't figured out how. I'd love to listen to them if I could download them.

It reads like a caricature, but I'm a relatively new convert from post-mil theonomy to 2K. I will say that the bullet points he claims German Christians bought from Hitler don't sound like the 2K advocates I've heard and read.


"The Gospel frees us from this world, frees us from allquestions of this world, frees us inwardly, also from thequestions of public life, also from the social question.Christianity has no answer to these questions."

I've never heard a 2K advocate say or imply such a thing.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

. . . Gar DeMar . . .

Originally Posted by Laura

My husband benefited from Dr. VanDrunen's inaugural address which deals with TK. You can find it on the WSC website; I can't seem to link to it rightly.

This was published (with notes) in WTJ 70 (2008): 207-24. Here is a link to the text version on the WSC site. MP3 audio here.

Cue dramatic music.

I read the article and thought is was very good. People can "cue the dramitic music" but we are already getting news that the two kingdoms could be a very dangerous way to live. For example, let's take a case right here in Illinois, for now if a person works in a phamacy and has a moral objection they would not have to fill a perscription for the "morning after" pill but the courts are moving to Force anyone with a license to fill ANY perscription. Also Doctors are being told that soon they may have to perforn abortions. God's laws are still what Christ calls perfect and it seems that God is pleased to bless those who love his Law and bless nations tha follow His law and keep there people from sin.

Originally Posted by Repre5entYHWH

two kingdoms podcast i've listened to the first two.. they are awesome.

Where do you find this podcast?

Originally Posted by Blev3rd

Originally Posted by Repre5entYHWH

two kingdoms podcast i've listened to the first two.. they are awesome.

Where do you find this podcast?

The Two Kingdoms

It's done by Gene Cook and Jonathan Goundry, the same guys who do The Narrow Mind.

I assume this is the same Two Kingdoms podcast...?

I thought DeMar did a good job on the article. I especially like how he points out that civil rulers are "ministers of God" (Romans 13) and are therefore required to render Him obedience.

you can go to the itunes store on your itunes programs and just type in two kingdoms

Originally Posted by brianeschen

I thought DeMar did a good job on the article. I especially like how he points out that civil rulers are "ministers of God" (Romans 13) and are therefore required to render Him obedience.

Ministers of God or not, they're still required to render him obedience!

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

It reads like a caricature, but I'm a relatively new convert from post-mil theonomy to 2K. I will say that the bullet points he claims German Christians bought from Hitler don't sound like the 2K advocates I've heard and read.


"The Gospel frees us from this world, frees us from allquestions of this world, frees us inwardly, also from thequestions of public life, also from the social question.Christianity has no answer to these questions."

I've never heard a 2K advocate say or imply such a thing.

I'd suggest then looking more closely at the writings of Scott Clark and Michael Horton. Some excerpts:

From Clark:

Special revelation wasn’t given to norm cultural or civil life. E.g. if we wish to apply special revelation to civil life, then we should all become theonomists...

...cultural issues are not well addressed from the kingdom of God (Word, sacraments, and discipline). Rather they are best addressed from creational or natural revelation.

More importantly, the civil or common (not neutral) realm is not a “gospel” realm. it is a legal realm. It belongs not to the covenant of grace but to the covenant of works.

...how, from a “two kingdoms” perspective one should think about the question of whether the state should sanction homosexual marriage.

The moral law of God has been revealed in creation and re-stated, in the context of the national covenant with Israel. For the purposes of deciding deciding post-theocratic civil questions, the national covenant having been fulfilled by Christ and thus having expired and having been abrogated, it is proper to appeal to the natural revelation of the moral law in creation.

..The truth is that Christians and non-Christians live together in the same world at the same time and in much the same way much of the time. It is much less clear what is distinctively Christian about the allegedly “Christian” view of any number of penultimate matters...

What precisely is “Christian” about “Christian” art? It has Christian themes, but if we obey the second commandment and do not attempt to represent the deity (including God the Son incarnate) then what is Christian about “Christian” art?

From Horton:

..So what is the relationship of Christians to culture in this time between the times? Is Jesus Christ Lord over secular powers and principalities? At least in Reformed theology, the answer is yes, though he is Lord in different ways over the world and the church. God presently rules the world through providence and common grace, while he rules the church through Word, sacrament, and covenantal nurture.

This means that there is no difference between Christians and non-Christians with respect to their vocations…

…[But] the human race is not divided at the present time between those who are blessed and those who are cursed. That time is coming, of course, but in this present age, believers and unbelievers alike share in the pains of childbirth, the burdens of labor, the temporal effects of their own sins, and the eventual surrender of their decaying bodies to death…there is in this present age a category for that which is neither holy nor unholy but simply common.”

When writing about Christian education, Cornelius Van Til stated that the fundamental truth that must be taught to our children is that there are two groups of people -- covenant keepers and covenant breakers. Base on this distinction, any other kingdom delineation is a false dichotomy.

Originally Posted by jwithnell

When writing about Christian education, Cornelius Van Til stated that the fundamental truth that must be taught to our children is that there are two groups of people -- covenant keepers and covenant breakers. Base on this distinction, any other kingdom delineation is a false dichotomy.

Considering the implications of the quotes I supplied, one could ask: is there really any such thing as "Christian education"?

I may be a simple man, but to my feeble mind the Two Kingdom view is specious. How many kings are there? One.

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

I may be a simple man, but to my feeble mind the Two Kingdom view is specious. How many kings are there? One.

There is one moral law and Lawgiver over both kingdoms yes. But the nature of the relationship is very different. Christians are sons of God in the covenant of grace, and citizens of the coming kingdom, and can only join by the regenerating work of the Spirit. Man in the covenant of works lies under God's judgment as rebels, and are citizens of the present world, reserved for destruction. There is one King over both peoples, but their relationship to the king is fundamentally different. And these peoples must live together for now, in common society, in a world that is still cursed, until Christ returns to liberate the creation from the bondage of corruption, and burn up the chaff. Somehow, despite these differences, we are to strive to live at peace with all men and yet remain faithful to the true king. There are obvious ethical/political implications in that. I don't know all the particulars of this Two Kingdom idea, but they are correct in this aspect. There is one King and one moral law, but two fundamentally different relationships and peoples.

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

I may be a simple man, but to my feeble mind the Two Kingdom view is specious. How many kings are there? One.

one King and it's all His, so one kingdom. Sounds simple to me!

There is one moral law and Lawgiver over both kingdoms yes. But the nature of the relationship is very different. Christians are sons of God in the covenant of grace, and citizens of the coming kingdom, and can only join by the regenerating work of the Spirit. Man in the covenant of works lies under God's judgment as rebels, and are citizens of the present world, reserved for destruction. There is one King over both peoples, but their relationship to the king is fundamentally different. And these peoples must live together for now, in common society, in a world that is still cursed, until Christ returns to liberate the creation from the bondage of corruption, and burn up the chaff. Somehow, despite these differences, we are to strive to live at peace with all men and yet remain faithful to the true king. There are obvious ethical/political implications in that. I don't know all the particulars of this Two Kingdom idea, but they are correct in this aspect. There is one King and one moral law, but two fundamentally different relationships and peoples.

Granted, all men are not in the same relationship with the King. But, the Law of God supersedes any laws of man. What is right in the eyes of God is always right. What is sin in the eyes of God is always sin. These facts are true regardless of one's relationship with the Law Giver. For the Christian to retreat behind the walls of the 'Kingdom of God' and refuse to hold the 'Kingdom of Man' to account for its violation of the Law of God makes no sense to me in the reading of Scriptural history.


Luther:

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point

Most of the adherents I see who hold to a Two Kingdom view, or at least the view as it is practiced, are running for cover in the assault upon the Gospel in the popular culture. All they while they are proclaiming their 'superiour' theological understanding. I'm not trying to cast stones. Not at all. To me, the way it is being touted by WHI and others is judicial / forensic dispensationalism.

Amen to that too!

Didn't Christ say in John 18:36 "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

No one who embraces the 2k view is saying there is more than one king and to make such a claim is specious. We just happen to embrace what Christ says in the Scripture that His is a heavenly kingdom and not an earthly one. I believe the rhetoric regarding the discussion of 2k vs theonomy occuring online borders on sinfulness and as Reformed brethren we should be able to have a civil discussion around this topic. I will be the first to admit that I have sinned in this regard.

-----Added 5/5/2009 at 11:42:53 EST-----

To me, the way it is being touted by WHI and others is judicial / forensic dispensationalism

This is the rhetoric I'm referring to which is an absolute ad homimen attack. Calling Mike Horton and other Men of God "dispensationalist".

Originally Posted by whitway

Didn't Christ say in John 18:36 "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

No one who embraces the 2k view is saying there is more than one king and to make such a claim is specious. We just happen to embrace what Christ says in the Scripture that His is a heavenly kingdom and not an earthly one. I believe the rhetoric regarding the discussion of 2k vs theonomy occuring online borders on sinfulness and as Reformed brethren we should be able to have a civil discussion around this topic. I will be the first to admit that I have sinned in this regard.

I hope you don't take my comments in that regard. I, too think the internet debate has become too heated. I also agree that the Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. I also, don't believe that the 2K view teaches a two king view (Although I have heard that more than once.) I just disagree with the way the 2K view seems to fairly consistently lead to a retreat into no longer being salt and light in the world in which we have be placed.

-----Added 5/5/2009 at 11:49:14 EST-----

To me, the way it is being touted by WHI and others is judicial / forensic dispensationalism

This is the rhetoric I'm referring to which is an absolute ad homimen attack. Calling Mike Horton and other Men of God "dispensationalist".

I'm sorry that you see it that way. If you look carefully, I was not addressing the men. I was addressing the view. I referenced the men because they are the most prominent spokesmen. I also am not calling them 'dispensationalist'. I am calling the view 'judicial / forensic dispensationalism'.

I really didn't mean to his such a nerve.

Lawrence, perhaps it would be helpful if you were to define "judicial/forensic dispensationalism" so that we are working from the same definition and so that there are no misunderstandings or unintentional insults.

Something else to consider: to what extent did the Reformers hold to a 2K view? For instance, would it be fair to accuse (as the article would seem to do) Luther, the Reformed theologian of justification par excellence, of forensic dispensationalism? Perhaps so, perhaps not; I'm just asking the question at this point.

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

To me, the way it is being touted by WHI and others is judicial / forensic dispensationalism.

Exactly.

I'd like to see both sides of this debate define their terms. What was presented in the article as the 2k view seemed, to me, to be a caricature. Many of the comments which followed the OP make sense if we adopt the caricature. But would proponents of the 2k view approve of the presentation of their view?

I didn't recognize the view Gary DeMar describes as Two Kingdoms.

None of the anti-2K comments in this thread so far have addressed the 2K view that I understand. But, then again, the caricature is a lot more fun (and easier) to attack.

Do you Theonomists really think you can engage secular culture by a theology that believes rebellious children should be stoned to death? Oh, wait. Is that a caricature?

There is a reason I no longer engage in these debates on the Puritan Board.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

There is a reason I no longer engage in these debates on the Puritan Board.

Well, we do need to play nice in the sandbox with one another or we will have to lock down yet another PB thread. Since this is my baby, I would rather not see that happen.

Healthy discussion would be nice, however. Let's refocus on these questions: Did the Reformers generally hold to a 2K view? Is this the view of the majority of the confessions? Were the Reformers influenced by medieval notions and therefore wrong? What is each side attempting to say?

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

There is a reason I no longer engage in these debates on the Puritan Board.

Well, we do need to play nice in the sandbox with one another or we will have to lock down yet another PB thread. Since this is my baby, I would rather not see that happen.

Healthy discussion would be nice, however. Let's refocus on these questions: Did the Reformers generally hold to a 2K view? Is this the view of the majority of the confessions? Were the Reformers influenced by medieval notions and therefore wrong? What is each side attempting to say?

To me, it is troubling how people read things with such obvious presuppositional biases. I really get the impression that the 2K people read the article through their lenses and then proceed to attack DeMar because they don't care much for him or any other theonomist/NC.

But to your inquiry; I don't think there is any doubt that a careful, objective reader of Calvin, Knox, or any other major reformer AFTER Luther (again note that DeMar stated UP TO Luther - Calvin and Knox could be classified as being after Luther, if only slightly) would understand where they stood on this issue. In fact, all one has to do is read the ORIGINAL WCF at Chapter 23, section 3 to get the answer as to where the vast majority of the 17th century reformers stood. (I say original because the AMERICANS obviously revised section 3 in 1789, having been caught up in US Constitution fever and enlightenment thinking ON THIS ISSUE rather than the teachings of Scripture.)

But to the saying of Benjamin (Backwoods Presbyterian), I do concur with him. It is not as if these arguments have been made for the first time. Just like with EP, or baptism, or any of the other controversial doctrinal positions, the same arguments get repeated again . . . and again . . . and again . . . until people give up from exhaustion.

So, like with Backwoods Presbyterian, my posting has become rare and selective as with also the selection of topics I even care to read.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Lawrence, perhaps it would be helpful if you were to define "judicial/forensic dispensationalism" so that we are working from the same definition and so that there are no misunderstandings or unintentional insults.

Something else to consider: to what extent did the Reformers hold to a 2K view? For instance, would it be fair to accuse (as the article would seem to do) Luther, the Reformed theologian of justification par excellence, of forensic dispensationalism? Perhaps so, perhaps not; I'm just asking the question at this point.

I think at its core the difference is this: the Reformed view of 2k has the civil magistrate enforcing both tables of the Decalogue, while the neo 2k only has the second table.

I think all other differences come out of this difference.

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Lawrence, perhaps it would be helpful if you were to define "judicial/forensic dispensationalism" so that we are working from the same definition and so that there are no misunderstandings or unintentional insults.

Something else to consider: to what extent did the Reformers hold to a 2K view? For instance, would it be fair to accuse (as the article would seem to do) Luther, the Reformed theologian of justification par excellence, of forensic dispensationalism? Perhaps so, perhaps not; I'm just asking the question at this point.

I think at its core the difference is this: the Reformed view of 2k has the civil magistrate enforcing both tables of the Decalogue, while the neo 2k only has the second table.

I think all other differences come out of this difference.

CT

That is it in a nutshell. WSC-style 2K is not your (Reformed fore-)father's 2K.

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

None of the anti-2K comments in this thread so far have addressed the 2K view that I understand. But, then again, the caricature is a lot more fun (and easier) to attack.

Do you Theonomists really think you can engage secular culture by a theology that believes rebellious children should be stoned to death? Oh, wait. Is that a caricature?

Um, we are to engage secular culture with the truth. If that truth is something that the culture does not like, does that imply that we somehow water it down to make it palatable?

If we are not to water it down, then I am not sure what the point of your second paragraph is?

CT

Gleened from another list, this link to the Dordt College faculty publication "Pro Rege" contains two articles challenging neo 2K.

http://www.dordt.edu/publications/pr...e_Mar_2009.pdf

Very interesting discussion in an area I am ignorant of.

Hermonta (CT), what do you see as the truth we are to engage secular culture with?

I am about to give a public lecture ("The Da Vinci Code vs. the Greek New Testament"), and am aiming for non-Christians to attend, not Christians. The "truth" I will try to present (in the 2nd half) is the relevance of the Word of God, the reality of the presence of God, the wickedness of man, the coming judgment, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and everlasting life.

I am fishing for souls, to add to God's Kingdom, and to our church. If the Lord grants us success, I expect some opposition for spoiling the kingdom of the world, which in its entirety lies in wickedness (1 John 5:19).

Do you think I err in my outlook?

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

Originally Posted by whitway

Didn't Christ say in John 18:36 "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

No one who embraces the 2k view is saying there is more than one king and to make such a claim is specious. We just happen to embrace what Christ says in the Scripture that His is a heavenly kingdom and not an earthly one. I believe the rhetoric regarding the discussion of 2k vs theonomy occuring online borders on sinfulness and as Reformed brethren we should be able to have a civil discussion around this topic. I will be the first to admit that I have sinned in this regard.

I hope you don't take my comments in that regard. I, too think the internet debate has become too heated. I also agree that the Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. I also, don't believe that the 2K view teaches a two king view (Although I have heard that more than once.) I just disagree with the way the 2K view seems to fairly consistently lead to a retreat into no longer being salt and light in the world in which we have be placed.

-----Added 5/5/2009 at 11:49:14 EST-----

To me, the way it is being touted by WHI and others is judicial / forensic dispensationalism

This is the rhetoric I'm referring to which is an absolute ad homimen attack. Calling Mike Horton and other Men of God "dispensationalist".

I'm sorry that you see it that way. If you look carefully, I was not addressing the men. I was addressing the view. I referenced the men because they are the most prominent spokesmen. I also am not calling them 'dispensationalist'. I am calling the view 'judicial / forensic dispensationalism'.

I really didn't mean to his such a nerve.

Lawrence,

You are looking at it with a theonomist lense. The 2k view is not saying that we should not be active in the policital sphere nor is it saying we shouldn't be salt and light but that we should understand how we as Christians and even more importantly the Church should be involved. Whereas a Theonomist would want to take their particular application of the Law (and there are numerous and when it all came out in the wash among all the Evangelicals there would be no consensus) and force it upon Society. Rather than coerce others into obeying the Law of God as Theonomy wants to do we believe that we should be about the business of Evangelism and reaching the lost so that the may have the Law fulfilled on their behalf as we who know Christ.

I am a Libertarian and have been more politically active since becoming Libertarian than I was when I was a Conservative Republican for 2 decades. We are both at the Tea Parties. I oppose Government intrustion, support States rights, want our taxes cut and want the Freedoms granted to me by the Constitution to be upheld. What I don't want is for the Church and the State to be in bed together. I don't want the State telling the Church how to do things nor do I want the Church trying to be the State. I want the Church to be the Church. Does that make sense?

As far as the "Dispensationalist" charge you need to substantiate it that is why I called it what it was "ad hominen". Lay out your proof that what Michael Horton teaches is Dispensational and we can go from there. Actually you didn't hit a nerve at all I'm just calling it the way I see it. I don't think what 2k Theology teaches ala Westminster Seminary in Escondido teaches is "Dispensational" I believe it to be Confessional. And those who want to charge it as "Dispensational" need to lay it out for the rest of us so we can respond appropriately.

In any event not sure if the discussion can be salvaged or not but as Christian Reformed brothers in Christ we should be able to do so civily. However some have said that it hasn't been possible and if that is the case then we will have to agree to disagree.

-----Added 5/5/2009 at 05:20:00 EST-----

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

What do you think about the following article by Gary DeMar, which criticizes the two kingdom approach to society?

Caricature to the point of not even being worthy of a response to be quite frank.

Wayne, thanks for the reply. What I am responding to is the increasing 'retreatism' that I see and hear discussed coming from those that use the 2k view as their reasoning.

As to the the charge of 'judicial/forensic dispensational' moniker. I will admit that I have a theonomic bent. But, I don't believe that it is jaundicing what I see. I'm not referring to 'Dispensationalism' but using the term 'dispensational' because the extremes to which I see some proponents of the 2k view go regarding the Christian's place in the public arena. They appear to divorce the Law of God from having any application in arenas beyond the Church and Christians. I am not referring here to the Levitical Code. Thus it is 'dispensational'. God's Law only applies to the church. It cannot and should not be expected that the world system be brought into compliance with it.

Right now I am battling a pretty bad stomach bug and don't have time to go back and dig out the references. I'm sorry for that. I'm just not up to it. But, when I hear the current voices telling Christians that they should not be involved in political action, should not call the world to account for violating the Law, and other things as this I sit and scratch my head. I agree that political action is not going to 'bring the Kingdom of God to earth'. But, that does not mean that we should not work diligently to have our laws reflect the nature of God.

Further, I have heard pastors lately saying that the Church has no business making public statements regarding public policy. This was in the context of homosexual marriage. Their reason? Public law is in the realm of the world. We have nothing to say to that. We can make statements within the church, but it is not our role to speak to the world regarding issues that pertain to the church. These were Reformed men.