Thread: The Terminological Problem of “The” Two Kingdoms

On my blog:

The Terminological Problem of “The” Two Kingdoms « Paradise Regained

No link to Dr. Clark's blog post?

There's a link to Olevianus' quote on his blog. But this isn't limited to any one blog post. For example, I saw the same thing going on in A Biblical Case for Natural Law, pp. 24-25, like where we read, "Seeds of the two kingdoms doctrine are evident in the earliest years of the Christian church" (emphasis mine), after which he goes on to name a number of early church documents, Augustine, some medieval theologians, and then some Reformers. Nevermind the manner in which these theologians actually distinguished and defined these "kingdoms," VanDrunen sees them as "seeds" for his two kingdom view.

That was helpful. Thanks Casey.

Good post, Casey. A textbook example of this "terminological" problem is seen here:

Or Maybe He Should Have Stayed Home? « Heidelblog

Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel

That was helpful. Thanks Casey.

You're welcome. I'm willing to bet it was just as helpful to myself for having written it! Writing has a way about clarifying thought. Glad it was of use to you. Blessings on the Lord's Day, brother.

Of note is this paper, recently presented by Dr. Kloosterman at an international conference on Bavinck. Kloosterman vivisects David Van Drunen's weak attempt to co-opt Bavinck's teaching to support VD's radical two kingdom theorum.

http://auxesis.net/kloosterman/natur...ms_bavinck.pdf