Thread: Article Critical of "Two Kingdom" view

May we have a definition of the "two kingdom view" from people on both sides of this issue?

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

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

CT, my point was that we don't ( and shouldn't) stone rebellious children. We don't live under the typological nation of Israel. It sometimes seems as though Theonomists evangelize with a law book. Israel could not stand under the yoke of the law. What makes you think that modern nations can stand under the yoke of the law? Lest someone be confused as to what exactly I mean by the law, I am referring to those elements commonly referred to as civil.

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

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

CT, my point was that we don't ( and shouldn't) stone rebellious children. We don't live under the typological nation of Israel. It sometimes seems as though Theonomists evangelize with a law book. Israel could not stand under the yoke of the law. What makes you think that modern nations can stand under the yoke of the law? Lest someone be confused as to what exactly I mean by the law, I am referring to those elements commonly referred to as civil.

Jon, two things:

1. Israel couldn't stand under the yoke of the law as a prerequisite for salvation. No theonomist claims that keeping the law is necessary for salvation, however, there is more than one use of the law (I know you know that, but it seems from your statement above that it momentarily slipped your mind). There is no indication in Scripture that the civil laws of Israel were a burden to the Israelites.

2. What makes you think modern societies can stand under the yoke of any law? Every civilization has law breakers (that is, people who cannot/will not keep the law). What makes the US Penal Code a better alternative to OT case law?

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

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

I think the article presses an extreme that the only type of Two Kingdom view is one that is indifferent to neighbor and is concerned only with pietistic self-improvement. There are gradations between Anabaptist views of the secular culture being against the Kingdom and the Kingdoms merging to the point that there is no distinction between religious and civil authority.

I agree with the idea that a self-absorbed view of the Christian life that only sees Christianity as dealing with life in the Body as fundamentally flawed. It ignores the requirement that Christians love their neighbor by what the Law positively requires. The Word of God, properly understood, ought to cause us to desire to love neighbor not simply as an evangelical target to get them into a lifeboat and out of the sinking ship of culture.

My love of the image of God in my neighbor impels me to treat those under my authority with care and concern. When I was in command and served in what constituted a magisterial role (with the ability to take liberty away) I could not check my Biblical convictions at the door. I rendered justice in the application of law in order to protect those that had been harmed by the violations of others. I was even able to appeal to the Law written on men's hearts to reprove them of the violation of integrity to sworn oaths to obey lawful orders.

At the same time, however, I distinctly remember a Reformed talk show host in SoCal around 2000-2002 who was so concerned with the Church having a militant role in transforming culture that he once brought a Roman Catholic fellow on his show. The gentleman was concerned that Churches were not preaching enough on the evils of culture and, in particular, the slaughter of innocent children through abortion.

On the one hand, I stand with many who are reviled by the death of millions of innocents. On the other hand, I could not reckon that the group had the right to dictate to ministers the proportion of sermons that had to be devoted to the topic of speaking out about the evils of culture from the pulpit. If they didn't meet this minimal requirement then his group would picket that Church and placard pictures of aborted infants to shame the Church that they were not militant enough in preaching against this evil.

My question to the Roman Catholic when I called into the show was simple: How is a Roman Catholic in any position to dictate to a Preacher of the Word what he is going to preach on? He was shocked that I challenged that he even was in a position to understand the Scriptures and their proper exposition and the host quickly changed the subject rather than get into the issue of whether or not the Roman Catholic Church was even preaching the Gospel.

Interestingly enough, we have a thread right now about whether or not preaching ought to be topical or expositional. If expositional then what is the Minister to do if the text he is faithfully expositing does not preach explicitly on the 6th Commandment? Ought ministers, in this culture, forego expository preaching because the Word does not regularly enough deal with the wickedness we find ourselves in and among? When has the culture ever been in a state where a preacher can leave the topic of wicked men oppressing and killing innocents for it certainly existed at the time of Paul when Roman citizens regularly abandoned unwanted children?

The Word, properly preached, transforms men. Men transformed ought to care about and love their neighbor and be impelled by the love of Christ to love neighbor in vocation and as they engage the culture. Even so, ministers of the Word need to be properly distinguished for the role they serve as undershepherds for Christ's flock. There are evils within the boundaries of the Church and elder care and shepherding does not mean that the minister spends the majority of his energy as the organizer of a Political Action Committee to transform society.

Proper preaching and catchetical instruction of the entire flock will have a quality all their own. Christians of the early centuries transformed the culture around them because they became known as people that would take in infants that nobody wanted. They were ridiculed for the fact that, although in poverty themselves, they would feed and care for another mouth that could give them nothing in return.

I can't quite articulate what I'm trying to say and feel like I'm rambling. I just believe some of us spend far too much time planning for the ideal community rather than starting where we currently live among men and women stumbling about in darkness who need to see that our love for Christ causes us to love our neighbor in ways that is surprising. Are men and women attracted to Christ by the fact that we constantly tell them how stupid they are for being dead in their sins or are we willing to bless them in ways that they cannot understand.

My friends, Matt and Karen, had to return an adopted child to a mother who lives on a reservation and is dead in her sins and trespasses. They returned the child with tears knowing that the mother would likely not care for the baby but had no other choice. They could have railed against her foolishness but, instead, mailed hundreds of dollars of baby supplies and gave instructions to the mother on how to care for this infant. They brought a $200 gift certificate to the mother to buy infant supplies and, in the presence of the lawyers, shared the Gospel to this woman who desperately needed the light of God's redemption in Christ. The lawyers present were moved to tears by the love of a Church that sent forth this gift not because the mother had been wise but because they loved this child and wanted its good and could do no more to bless the child.

That's what the Gospel does.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I can't quite articulate what I'm trying to say and feel like I'm rambling.

No, I think you said things quite well. The gospel transforms, pure and simple. Even Rushdooney said that.

Thank you for one of the best response posts I've read on the PB.

I don't see the 2k view as necessarily a position of retreat. Again, caricatures. Sure, there are some, perhaps many. But retreat isn't inherent to the position itself.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

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 Scott1

May we have a definition of the "two kingdom view" from people on both sides of this issue?

I've detected the term "two kingdoms" being used in three different ways (if you want to define terms, here's a start; I've included quotes). I don't believe any Reformed confessions/catechisms follow the WSC understanding of the doctrine (as espoused, e.g., by VanDrunen's A Biblical Case for Natural Law). My preliminary conclusion is that the WSC doctrine is a novelty piggy-backing familiar terminology, but I'm happy to be corrected. I'm also convinced that the WSC2K vs. theonomy framework of the debate is a false dichotomy; it's not an either-or, there are other options.

In terms of evaluating different teachings on Church and State (the two kingdoms), it is always good to look at the subject historically to see what options are available and where the lines of demarcation are to be drawn. There are basically only four views: the Romanist, with its teaching of temporal supremacy, makes the State subservient to the Church; the Anabaptist, which turns the Church into a State or otherwise disowns the State altogether; the Lutheran (not Luther, but post 19th century Lutheranism), so separates the State from the Church as to make the State a law unto itself and the Christian to live two entirely separate lives, one public and one private, with religion being relegated to the private sector; and the Reformed (which Luther and early Lutheranism shared to some extent), which maintains the distinction and connection of Church and State as both existing under the rule of God.

It should be noted that the American revision to the Westminster Standards is still essentially reformed in that it maintains the distinction and connection of Church and State, but merely disowns the characteristic of the Scottish and Dutch churches in which a specific denomination was established. The idea of a "Christian State" was still a feature of American Presbyterian churches up until the separations from mainline churches took place in the 20th century.

Originally Posted by Spinningplates2

but we are already getting news that the two kingdoms could be a very dangerous way to live.

the 2 kingdom view is dangerous because it is wrong. Nowhere is scripture is a Christian remotely allowed to live a compartmentalized life. A Christian is sanctified in his person by the Holy Spirit, and this sanctification affects his family, his church and his community.

Let me give you an example. I have a Pentecostal Christian friend that attended University in the caribbean. He became the President of the student government association. Certain monies are given to the student government association to engage in activities. One of the activities of former Presidents was the throwing of riotous bacchanalia parties (typical). When my friend became President, his Christian conscience wouldn't permit it, and he banned such parties under his tenure, and used the money to do a construction project. Do you think the Lord was happy that my friend didn't succumb to the Two Kingdom's view? Yes. And even if throwing this party was law, my friend would have delayed it until his tenure was up.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

It should be noted that the American revision to the Westminster Standards is still essentially reformed in that it maintains the distinction and connection of Church and State, but merely disowns the characteristic of the Scottish and Dutch churches in which a specific denomination was established. The idea of a "Christian State" was still a feature of American Presbyterian churches up until the separations from mainline churches took place in the 20th century.

Not sure I agree with this, I would have to see the evidence. Once the Americans made the WCF revision to Chapter XXIII section 3 in 1789, I believe that the majority of Presbyterian denominations essentially adopted a 2K view. To my knowledge, only the American Covenanters (RPCNA) maintained the original section 3 language, but there might have been others. I know that Chris would have the answer!

But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies? Hard to believe that, given the number of heresies that arose in the US during the 19th century. But yes, you are correct that after the declines in orthodoxy really accelerated after WWII, the 2K and event the baptistic view of the state started having supremacy.

I haven't studied this Randy but have thought about doing so; and have breezed through Irons paper and am skeptical of the extent to which he takes the revisions for an interpretive grid for the unmodified sections which Bahnsen raises. But when all is said and done I seriously doubt the views of 1788 equate to what is being presented by some as a 2 kingdoms view. But that is all I'm prepared to say.
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/1788_revision.pdf

Originally Posted by R Harris

Originally Posted by armourbearer

It should be noted that the American revision to the Westminster Standards is still essentially reformed in that it maintains the distinction and connection of Church and State, but merely disowns the characteristic of the Scottish and Dutch churches in which a specific denomination was established. The idea of a "Christian State" was still a feature of American Presbyterian churches up until the separations from mainline churches took place in the 20th century.

Not sure I agree with this, I would have to see the evidence. Once the Americans made the WCF revision to Chapter XXIII section 3 in 1789, I believe that the majority of Presbyterian denominations essentially adopted a 2K view. To my knowledge, only the American Covenanters (RPCNA) maintained the original section 3 language, but there might have been others. I know that Chris would have the answer!

But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies? Hard to believe that, given the number of heresies that arose in the US during the 19th century. But yes, you are correct that after the declines in orthodoxy really accelerated after WWII, the 2K and event the baptistic view of the state started having supremacy.

Originally Posted by R Harris

But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies? Hard to believe that, given the number of heresies that arose in the US during the 19th century. But yes, you are correct that after the declines in orthodoxy really accelerated after WWII, the 2K and event the baptistic view of the state started having supremacy.

Hmmm, that is an interesting observation. But I'm assuming the Church of Scotland is still under the original wording of the WCF. I'm not up on my British governmental powers, but what has the magistrate there done in the last 200 years to suppress heresies? I'm not voicing that as a challenge, but as a genuine inquiry.

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

Originally Posted by Spinningplates2

but we are already getting news that the two kingdoms could be a very dangerous way to live.

the 2 kingdom view is dangerous because it is wrong. Nowhere is scripture is a Christian remotely allowed to live a compartmentalized life. A Christian is sanctified in his person by the Holy Spirit, and this sanctification affects his family, his church and his community.

Let me give you an example. I have a Pentecostal Christian friend that attended University in the caribbean. He became the President of the student government association. Certain monies are given to the student government association to engage in activities. One of the activities of former Presidents was the throwing of riotous bacchanalia parties (typical). When my friend became President, his Christian conscience wouldn't permit it, and he banned such parties under his tenure, and used the money to do a construction project. Do you think the Lord was happy that my friend didn't succumb to the Two Kingdom's view? Yes. And even if throwing this party was law, my friend would have delayed it until his tenure was up.

This unfortunately is erecting a strawman as no 2ker I know including myself is saying that one must live a compartmentalized life or violate his conscience or God's Law in the public sphere.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Originally Posted by R Harris

But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies? Hard to believe that, given the number of heresies that arose in the US during the 19th century. But yes, you are correct that after the declines in orthodoxy really accelerated after WWII, the 2K and event the baptistic view of the state started having supremacy.

Hmmm, that is an interesting observation. But I'm assuming the Church of Scotland is still under the original wording of the WCF. I'm not up on my British governmental powers, but what has the magistrate there done in the last 200 years to suppress heresies? I'm not voicing that as a challenge, but as a genuine inquiry.

Actually, the Church of Scotland modified the original section with a disclaimer upon adopting it, something to the effect that "this does not entail a principal of persecution." One of our Confessional scholars could probably provide a more accurate quote. Many of the Divines were concerned with Erastianism.

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Hmmm, that is an interesting observation. But I'm assuming the Church of Scotland is still under the original wording of the WCF. I'm not up on my British governmental powers, but what has the magistrate there done in the last 200 years to suppress heresies? I'm not voicing that as a challenge, but as a genuine inquiry.

You are correct, my friend. Sadly, this issue applies to the whole WCF, as we see with the "degree of subscription" debate going on. Just because one says he agrees to and abides by the WCF doesn't actually mean that he really believes it or really abides by it. I am sure the Church of Scotland has many offenders.

As for the nation of Scotland, that sad story has been plain for all to see for the last century or so. The fact that John Knox is buried somewhere under or very close to a parking lot should tell us all we need to know.

As I noted above, that was the Free Church in the mid 19th century which rejected persecuting principles. As far as the 17th century, you are probably thinking of the "adopting act" of the Church of Scotland where they note how they regarded the magistrates' calling of synods.

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Originally Posted by Marrow Man

Originally Posted by R Harris

But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies? Hard to believe that, given the number of heresies that arose in the US during the 19th century. But yes, you are correct that after the declines in orthodoxy really accelerated after WWII, the 2K and event the baptistic view of the state started having supremacy.

Hmmm, that is an interesting observation. But I'm assuming the Church of Scotland is still under the original wording of the WCF. I'm not up on my British governmental powers, but what has the magistrate there done in the last 200 years to suppress heresies? I'm not voicing that as a challenge, but as a genuine inquiry.

Actually, the Church of Scotland modified the original section with a disclaimer upon adopting it, something to the effect that "this does not entail a principal of persecution" or something to that effect. One of our Confessional scholars could probably provide a more accurate quote. Many of the Divines were concerned with Erastianism.

Yes, that's it. Thanks for the clarification.

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

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?

Looks good to me.

Originally Posted by whitway

This unfortunately is erecting a strawman as no 2ker I know including myself is saying that one must live a compartmentalized life or violate his conscience or God's Law in the public sphere.

Not entirely a straw man, since the WSC2K view posits a dual ethic. We have yet to see what happens when the rubber meets the road in America. In Germany we know what happened with the Lutherans and the crisis their two-kingdom theology brought them.

Originally Posted by R Harris

Once the Americans made the WCF revision to Chapter XXIII section 3 in 1789, I believe that the majority of Presbyterian denominations essentially adopted a 2K view.

If one reads the Southern Presbyterian Thornwell and compares him with the Scottish Presbyterian Bannerman, it will be seen that the two agree with the moral obligations of the State towards Chritianity, but only differ on the State's duty towards establishing a particular church.

One needs to be careful when mapping out the state of the question not to confuse voluntaryism with political pluralism.

Originally Posted by R Harris

But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies?

I think many old schoolers would agree in principle that it is the magistrate's duty to suppress heresy, but the problem is with how this can be practically carried out under a so-called democracy.

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

Originally Posted by whitway

This unfortunately is erecting a strawman as no 2ker I know including myself is saying that one must live a compartmentalized life or violate his conscience or God's Law in the public sphere.

Not entirely a straw man, since the WSC2K view posits a dual ethic. We have yet to see what happens when the rubber meets the road in America. In Germany we know what happened with the Lutherans and the crisis their two-kingdom theology brought them.

Casey. Demonstrate the Dual Ethic rather than just continue to make assertions. There is a dual citizenship as layed out by Christ in the New Testament when He commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesars and He stated clearly that His Kingdom was not of this world. Doesn't mean we aren't politically active. What it does mean is we understand our roles.

Hitler isn't the result of Lutherans "two kingdom theology" and to suggest such is frivolous at best . So are you saying that Luther, the father of the Reformation is responsible for the Killing of 6 million Jews? Sounds like you are when in fact it may have been the result of a misinterpretation of 2k theology. It isn't the silver bullet you were looking for however I know it sounds good. Just another caricature.

I'd like to see the rubber hit the road with Theonomy and its various abberations.

Originally Posted by whitway

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

Originally Posted by whitway

This unfortunately is erecting a strawman as no 2ker I know including myself is saying that one must live a compartmentalized life or violate his conscience or God's Law in the public sphere.

Not entirely a straw man, since the WSC2K view posits a dual ethic. We have yet to see what happens when the rubber meets the road in America. In Germany we know what happened with the Lutherans and the crisis their two-kingdom theology brought them.

Casey. Demonstrate the Dual Ethic rather than just continue to make assertions. There is a dual citizenship as layed out by Christ in the New Testament when He commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesars and He stated clearly that His Kingdom was not of this world. Doesn't mean we aren't politically active. What it does mean is we understand our roles.

Hitler isn't the result of Lutherans "two kingdom theology" and to suggest such is frivolous at best . So are you saying that Luther, the father of the Reformation is responsible for the Killing of 6 million Jews? Sounds like you are when in fact it may have been the result of a misinterpretation of 2k theology. It isn't the silver bullet you were looking for however I know it sounds good. Just another caricature.

I'd like to see the rubber hit the road with Theonomy and its various abberations.

Does not the lack of enforcement of both tables of the decalogue imply a dual ethic?

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by whitway

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

Not entirely a straw man, since the WSC2K view posits a dual ethic. We have yet to see what happens when the rubber meets the road in America. In Germany we know what happened with the Lutherans and the crisis their two-kingdom theology brought them.

Casey. Demonstrate the Dual Ethic rather than just continue to make assertions. There is a dual citizenship as layed out by Christ in the New Testament when He commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesars and He stated clearly that His Kingdom was not of this world. Doesn't mean we aren't politically active. What it does mean is we understand our roles.

Hitler isn't the result of Lutherans "two kingdom theology" and to suggest such is frivolous at best . So are you saying that Luther, the father of the Reformation is responsible for the Killing of 6 million Jews? Sounds like you are when in fact it may have been the result of a misinterpretation of 2k theology. It isn't the silver bullet you were looking for however I know it sounds good. Just another caricature.

I'd like to see the rubber hit the road with Theonomy and its various abberations.

Does not the lack of enforcement of both tables of the decalogue imply a dual ethic?

CT

No it implies a Christian Ethic as Christ Himself taught us in the New Testament. You lack distinctions between Civil Magistrates and the Church.

Originally Posted by whitway

Casey. Demonstrate the Dual Ethic rather than just continue to make assertions.

Just read the VanDrunen article I linked to earlier in this thread, or click here. The WSC2K view is that life is compartmentalized into two ethics, the spiritual kingdom based on special revelation the civil kingdom on natural law. Please show me if I am misunderstanding the WSC2K view.

Hitler isn't the result of Lutherans "two kingdom theology" and to suggest such is frivolous at best . So are you saying that Luther, the father of the Reformation is responsible for the Killing of 6 million Jews? Sounds like you are when in fact it may have been the result of a misinterpretation of 2k theology. It isn't the silver bullet you were looking for however I know it sounds good. Just another caricature.

I did not say Hitler was the result of Lutheran two kingdom theology.

I did not say that Luther is responsible for the killing of 6 million Jews.

I said the Lutheran church in Germany faced a crisis on account of their two kingdom theology when Hitler rose to power.

What I said was not a caricature.

I'd like to see the rubber hit the road with Theonomy and its various abberations.

I'm not a theonomist, so I don't see how this is relevent -- unless you are assuming that theonomy and WSC2K are the only two views. They're not.

-----Added 5/6/2009 at 08:21:41 EST-----

Originally Posted by whitway

No it implies a Christian Ethic as Christ Himself taught us in the New Testament. You lack distinctions between Civil Magistrates and the Church. However I would expect a Theonomist to mix Law and Gospel however unfortunate it may be.

You are doing the very thing you have requested others not to do (misrepresent others' views).

One need not hold the WSC2K view to hold the distinction between civil magistrates and the church.

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Does not the lack of enforcement of both tables of the decalogue imply a dual ethic?

It doesn't imply, it is, a non-ethic. If the magistrate has no "ought" to guide him he is a law to himself. Even those who maintain that he is bound to uphold second table duties still leave the magistrate a law to himself; if he is not bound to acknowledge the one true God then he is free to interpret the second table of the law any way he pleases.

-----Added 5/6/2009 at 08:30:50 EST-----

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

Originally Posted by whitway

This unfortunately is erecting a strawman as no 2ker I know including myself is saying that one must live a compartmentalized life or violate his conscience or God's Law in the public sphere.

Not entirely a straw man, since the WSC2K view posits a dual ethic. We have yet to see what happens when the rubber meets the road in America. In Germany we know what happened with the Lutherans and the crisis their two-kingdom theology brought them.

I think Karl Barth's explanation for the rise of Nazism is actually more correct.

It was a combination of liberal theology (German pantheism and idealism) and German nationalism. More bluntly, they felt that God was revealing himself in history through the progress and perfection of the German race. Lutheran 2 kingdom ideas might have allowed the situation to develop early on, but itself is not to blame. The German church had long departed from the gospel of confessional protestantism and instead was preaching the message of contemporary German culture, so it was an inevitable to get caught up with the Nazi's.

I don't think any of the 2 kingdom guys are giving up the gospel to preach the spirit of the age. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I would like to think better of my 2k brethren.

Originally Posted by whitway

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by whitway

Casey. Demonstrate the Dual Ethic rather than just continue to make assertions. There is a dual citizenship as layed out by Christ in the New Testament when He commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesars and He stated clearly that His Kingdom was not of this world. Doesn't mean we aren't politically active. What it does mean is we understand our roles.

Hitler isn't the result of Lutherans "two kingdom theology" and to suggest such is frivolous at best . So are you saying that Luther, the father of the Reformation is responsible for the Killing of 6 million Jews? Sounds like you are when in fact it may have been the result of a misinterpretation of 2k theology. It isn't the silver bullet you were looking for however I know it sounds good. Just another caricature.

I'd like to see the rubber hit the road with Theonomy and its various abberations.

Does not the lack of enforcement of both tables of the decalogue imply a dual ethic?

CT

No it implies a Christian Ethic as Christ Himself taught us in the New Testament. You lack distinctions between Civil Magistrates and the Church. However I would expect a Theonomist to mix Law and Gospel however unfortunate it may be.

I thought everyone here admitted that the difference between the new and old 2k views is that the old one says that both tables of the Decalogue are to be enforced by the civil magistrate while the new one says that only the second table is to be enforced.

I was not making an argument over which side was correct. I was just pointing out that the new view implies a dual ethic. If one wishes to make a theological, scriptural, or whatever argument for or against such, so be it. But it is what it is.

Also one does not have to be a new 2 kingdom person in order to distinguish between the church and hte state. The issue is what the distinctions look like.

CT

I wasn't talking about my WSC2K brothers per se, I was talking about their view on "two kingdoms." Ideas have consequences. The Lutherans in Germany are a possible analogous historical example of those holding a similar position. There is nothing new under the sun and I'd prefer to learn from history than repeat it. Perhaps there is another historical connection more appropriate.

May I suggest this page for many resources on the Two-Kingdoms view:

Two_Kingdom_Social_Theory

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

I wasn't talking about my WSC2K brothers per se, I was talking about their view on "two kingdoms." Ideas have consequences. The Lutherans in Germany are a possible analogous historical example of those holding a similar position. There is nothing new under the sun and I'd prefer to learn from history than repeat it. Perhaps there is another historical connection more appropriate.

You are right, there is nothing new under the sun.

I think the analogous situation would be that the tendency of the 2K scheme (at least as described in this thread) would have a similar effect as pietism or old-fundamentalism, influencing the Reformed microcosm in the West to retreat from cultural interaction, and further allow the anti-Christian cultural drift to have even more say in shaping our national values and policies.

I'll read through Dr. VanDrunen's piece tonight to hear both sides. I want to give him a fair hearing.

If you really want to understand VanDrunen's "system," you should check his little book.

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

If you really want to understand VanDrunen's "system," you should check his little book.

Well, I read the article you linked, and honestly I didn't find anything wrong with it. He basically lays out the framework of how justice is executed differently for those in the covenant of grace and those still under the covenant of works. He holds that the basics of the moral law as summarized in the Decalogue are still present in both kingdoms (pg. 3), not just the second table. This motivation to obey the law under the covenant of works is exact retribution and self-justification in light of impending judgment. Under the covenant of grace the motivation to obey is love and devotion to God from a regenerate heart, living in light of our judgment already rendered in Christ, and showing forgiveness and mercy toward our enemies. The ethical motivitions are different even though the law is the same. I see nothing wrong with this idea at all. This is perfectly orthodox Reformed theology and ethics.

I did find one point of his very interesting, regarding the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount. In the Church, justice is not exact and retributive, nor based on our works. Instead we are to show mercy and turn the other cheek. But in the civil kingdom, justice must be exact, reward for good, punishment for evil, blood for blood, etc.

It prompted me to ask, how could the civil magistrate enforce the Sermon on the Mount? But perhaps I will start another thread for that...

Unfortunately, he doesn't get into specifics about how his view works out in practice, particularly in politics and culture. Does he do that in his book?

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

This is perfectly orthodox Reformed theology and ethics.

This seems to suggest that what he is doing is part and parcel with the tradition. But I don't think that's the case.

Let me give you one example of what I think is wrong (but please note, it's been a few months since I've read it, so this is from a fuzzy memory of what he wrote -- but I did listen to and read it a number of times so I think I understand him [but I'm happy to be corrected]):

Following his WSC2K view, the two kingdoms represent moral realms -- the church governed by special revelation and the-rest-of-life by natural law. In the church we find the grace of God, forgiveness, and mercy. The-rest-of-life is not like that: civil government, business, playing games, etc., all this (everything outside of church) is governed by natural law (covenant of works).

Is that so? Are the rules of the games we play governed by natural law? Of course not. Should our friendships be governed by strict, law-required obedience? Does the marriage relationship not allow for forgiveness and mercy? According to his system, it cannot -- a married couple is not the church. WSC2K posits dual-citizenship, so what applies to the church does not apply to a marriage even if the one married is a church member.

You might respond to my criticism by saying, "but he's talking about civil government in distinction from the church." My answer: No he's not. That's the novelty of his view. The civil kingdom, in his view, is not to be equated with the state. In his view, everything except the institutional church is to be governed by natural law -- including the state but apparently even our game-playing, marriages, friendships, and schools/education. It's the two-kingdom folk who say there's no such thing as a "Christian school" -- if that's true, then there's no such thing as a Christian marriage either.

I don't think a lot of people have really thought out where this line of thinking goes. No Christian education? Then WSC shouldn't exist (it's not the church, after all -- it's technically parachurch [not governed by a single denomination]). It's not "neo-Calvinism" to say that we should have an undivided heart directed towards God for all of life, it's simply Augustinian. WSC2K is a far cry from Augustine's two cities. (Augustine posited single-citizenship.)

Unfortunately, he doesn't get into specifics about how his view works out in practice, particularly in politics and culture. Does he do that in his book?

Admittedly, his book is very short. But if you want a succinct layout of his system, the book is better -- it includes biblical arguments (though I find them unconvincing). He has a couple of articles out dealing with some cultural/political issues from the two kingdoms/natural law framework in Modern Reformation (maybe someone could find and link to them).

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

This is perfectly orthodox Reformed theology and ethics.

This seems to suggest that what he is doing is part and parcel with the tradition. But I don't think that's the case.

Let me give you one example of what I think is wrong (but please note, it's been a few months since I've read it, so this is from a fuzzy memory of what he wrote -- but I did listen to and read it a number of times so I think I understand him [but I'm happy to be corrected]):

Following his WSC2K view, the two kingdoms represent moral realms -- the church governed by special revelation and the-rest-of-life by natural law. In the church we find the grace of God, forgiveness, and mercy. The-rest-of-life is not like that: civil government, business, playing games, etc., all this (everything outside of church) is governed by natural law (covenant of works).

Is that so? Are the rules of the games we play governed by natural law? Of course not. Should our friendships be governed by strict, law-required obedience? Does the marriage relationship not allow for forgiveness and mercy? According to his system, it cannot -- a married couple is not the church. WSC2K posits dual-citizenship, so what applies to the church does not apply to a marriage even if the one married is a church member.

You might respond to my criticism by saying, "but he's talking about civil government in distinction from the church." My answer: No he's not. That's the novelty of his view. The civil kingdom, in his view, is not to be equated with the state. In his view, everything except the institutional church is to be governed by natural law -- including the state but apparently even our game-playing, marriages, friendships, and schools/education. It's the two-kingdom folk who say there's no such thing as a "Christian school" -- if that's true, then there's no such thing as a Christian marriage either.

I guess that is not how I understood it. Granted I haven't read his other writings. But I think he is right in the way justice is dealt in the two covenants, and the way the citizens of the two kingdoms think. Those under the covenant of works do think in terms of self-justification and self-preservation. That's the way of the twisted sin nature still trying to live in terms of the covenant of works, "do this and live." The magistrate it not to show mercy to murderers. But, Christians are to show mercy. They do live in a different mindset because their justification is passed. They no longer live in self-preservation and self-justification because Christ preserves and justifies them.

And if I understand him right, he believes this grace ethic should in fact influence our culture, relationships, workplace, etc. It's a witness to the way of life under the rule and reign of Christ in the covenant of grace. When we show mercy, we are no longer rendering the justice that is due under the covenant of works, but instead showing the recipient that there is another way to live.

So, for example, someone sees your marriage going well, and they are having trouble, they will ask you you why, and you can tell them about the grace and love of Christ and how it changed your marriage from a relationship of competition and self-promotion, to one of sacrificial and grace-enabled love, reflecting Christ and his Church.

That's why is was pondering aloud, could the magistrate enforce the sermon on the Mount? Because there is a different ethical motivation going on there. It's the same moral law expounded by Christ, but the motivation to keep it is much different than the law as a covenant of works.

Now, maybe that's just me, and I'm missing what you see. I'll read up on it some more because I know this will be discussed in the future, at least in the OPC. But I don't see a problem with the article itself at this point.

I don't think a lot of people have really thought out where this line of thinking goes. No Christian education? Then WSC shouldn't exist (it's not the church, after all -- it's technically parachurch [not governed by a single denomination]). It's not "neo-Calvinism" to say that we should have an undivided heart directed towards God for all of life, it's simply Augustinian. WSC2K is a far cry from Augustine's two cities. (Augustine posited single-citizenship.)

Unfortunately, he doesn't get into specifics about how his view works out in practice, particularly in politics and culture. Does he do that in his book?

Admittedly, his book is very short. But if you want a succinct layout of his system, the book is better -- it includes biblical arguments (though I find them unconvincing). He has a couple of articles out dealing with some cultural/political issues from the two kingdoms/natural law framework in Modern Reformation (maybe someone could find and link to them).

Unfortunately, I'll have to save up for his book. The cheapest is $50 on Amazon... Unless there's a different book you are referring to? I'll try to look those articles up. Thanks for the interaction brother.

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Unfortunately, I'll have to save up for his book. The cheapest is $50 on Amazon... Unless there's a different book you are referring to? I'll try to look those articles up. Thanks for the interaction brother.

That's ridiculous (and I mean the Amazon sellers trying to sell it for $89). Just buy it straight from us -- it's only $7.82.

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

Unfortunately, I'll have to save up for his book. The cheapest is $50 on Amazon... Unless there's a different book you are referring to? I'll try to look those articles up. Thanks for the interaction brother.

Based on your response, I think you're misunderstanding my critique of his position. I probably didn't articulate it well . . .

$50! Whoa! That's way over-priced! Don't pay that much for it, friend! It's $6 here.

Originally Posted by Anton Bruckner

Originally Posted by Spinningplates2

but we are already getting news that the two kingdoms could be a very dangerous way to live.

the 2 kingdom view is dangerous because it is wrong. Nowhere is scripture is a Christian remotely allowed to live a compartmentalized life. A Christian is sanctified in his person by the Holy Spirit, and this sanctification affects his family, his church and his community.

Let me give you an example. I have a Pentecostal Christian friend that attended University in the caribbean. He became the President of the student government association. Certain monies are given to the student government association to engage in activities. One of the activities of former Presidents was the throwing of riotous bacchanalia parties (typical). When my friend became President, his Christian conscience wouldn't permit it, and he banned such parties under his tenure, and used the money to do a construction project. Do you think the Lord was happy that my friend didn't succumb to the Two Kingdom's view? Yes. And even if throwing this party was law, my friend would have delayed it until his tenure was up.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Does not the lack of enforcement of both tables of the decalogue imply a dual ethic?

It doesn't imply, it is, a non-ethic. It the magistrate has no "ought" to guide him he is a law to himself. Even those who maintain that he is bound to uphold second table duties still leave the magistrate a law to himself; if he is not bound to acknowledge the one true God then he is free to interpret the second table of the law any way he pleases.

I agree with you, but I think this matters on a personal level with the Magistrate. There can be Christian magistrates in non-Christian countries who interpret the law just as well as one would in a Christian country. And some can do better than would a pretend Christian leader in a Christian country. And even the ways that different Christians understand and interpret laws/ The Law are different! Some have more liberty than others, while others have more license. How to reconcile this politically? I would rather know that I am responsible for living a godly life as my conscience declares, than depend on the government to flesh that out for me! I would rather my church use her authority to punish adultery than the removed government.

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

I guess I am outside the neo-2k view as I don't even believe the magistrate should enforce every application of the second table of the law.

I'm an amillenialist and a 2K advocate. Nevertheless, I echo the sentiments expressed by others in this post. The all pervasive escapism which sometimes manifests itself in the rhetoric of the WHI hosts and others strikes me as a serious aberration from historic Reformed thinking. What I often hear is a stark separation of Christ from politics to the point where men like Kuyper, Schaeffer, and other "neo-Calvinists" are dismissed as theologians of glory. That's part of the reason why I sometimes find it hard to listen to the WHI. I'm convinced that a two-kingdoms theology can coexist along with a strong engagement with the political sphere.

Originally Posted by Cotton Mather

That's part of the reason why I sometimes find it hard to listen to the WHI.

Ditto.

Is there some way in which your 2K doctrine actually differs from the WHI folk? I mean, is there a reason why you don't come to the same conclusions (such as those mentioned in your post)?