Thread: Two Kingdom teaching and Kline?

I am sorry but I am ignorant concerning something I have been hearing about lately. From what I understand there is a teaching that is called something like 'the two Kingdom theology', and that it seems to have been something that Meredith Kline advocated.

Can some of you guys give me some references to look at so that I might understand the debate pros and cons?

Randy,

Some form of a "two-kingdom" ethic is traceable to the earliest days of the Reformation. Meredith Kline was born several hundred years after the Reformation.

There are lots of resources here:

Once More: Resources on the Two Kingdoms Heidelblog

Our January faculty conference will touch on this.

http://www.wscal.edu/newsevents/conf...2010/index.php

If you can't make it to the conference you can watch the streaming video live

Here's an interview with Bob Godfrey and David VanDrunen discussing some of these questions:

http://netfilehost.com/wscal/OfficeH...4.09WRGDVD.mp3

David VanDrunen has a significant volume on this to appear in Jan, '10, DV.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Randy,

Some form of a "two-kingdom" ethic is traceable to the earliest days of the Reformation.

And yet it is blatantly contradicted by the Reformed confessions. It cannot be disputed that statements such as the following accurately represent the minds of the majority of the Reformed.

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide, that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God WCF 23.3


And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, the civil rulers have the task, subject to God's law, of removing every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship.

They should do this while completely refraining from every tendency toward exercising absolute authority, and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them, with the means belonging to them.

And the government's task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in his Word. From article 36 of the Belgic Confession

My humble attempt at providing a little clarity to the subject: link. I've found that some like equivocating on these terms.

Adam,

As you surely know, the Belgic Confession and the WCF have been revised.

The Belgic was first revised in 1905 or '06 and that revision was adopted in 1910 by the CRC and again in the 50's I think by the CRC to eliminate the requirement of the magistrate to stamp out heresy.

As you know the WCF was revised by the Am. Presbyterians in the late 18th century.

Further, none of the major commentators understand the Belgic to require any more of the magistrate to do any more than to prevent persecution of the church.

Yes, the 16th and 17th century churches were theocratic but the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy hasn't been theocratic for a very long time, hence the confessional revisions. Yes, there are denominations that don't accept the revisions but it's not fair to ignore the revisions as if they never happened and then tag the two kingdoms for denying the revisions.

Further, if you'll do just a little research you'll see that the theory of the two-kingdoms has deep Reformation roots. The implementation was delayed by the hangover of Constantinianism but the theory was certainly two kingdom. I've given numerous quotes to this effect on the HB and provided links here.

Originally Posted by R. Scott Clark

Adam,

As you surely know, the Belgic Confession and the WCF have been revised.

The Belgic was first revised in 1905 or '06 and that revision was adopted in 1910 by the CRC and again in the 50's I think by the CRC to eliminate the requirement of the magistrate to stamp out heresy.

As you know the WCF was revised by the Am. Presbyterians in the late 18th century.

Further, none of the major commentators understand the Belgic to require any more of the magistrate to do any more than to prevent persecution of the church.

Yes, the 16th and 17th century churches were theocratic but the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy hasn't been theocratic for a very long time, hence the confessional revisions. Yes, there are denominations that don't accept the revisions but it's not fair to ignore the revisions as if they never happened and then tag the two kingdoms for denying the revisions.

Further, if you'll do just a little research you'll see that the theory of the two-kingdoms has deep Reformation roots. The implementation was delayed by the hangover of Constantinianism but the theory was certainly two kingdom. I've given numerous quotes to this effect on the HB and provided links here.

I do not ignore the revisions (though I reject them). If the 2 Kingdoms proponents wish to claim that their theory is in line with the revisions so be it (I will leave it to those with a stake in that fight to respond).

However, your theory is that these "deep reformation roots" somehow were ignored or that the framers of the confessions were inconsistent or suffering from a "hangover of Constantinianism". So be it. I fundamentally disagree with your reading of history. I rather believe that those who revised the Confession were not making it more consistent with reformation thought, but abandoning an important feature of it. To claim that the 2 Kingdom view (as presently articulated by its proponents from WSCal) is compatible with the Westminster Confession as it was originally framed is simply not tenable with the reading of the words themsleves, let alone the words of the men who framed it.

As to the Belgic Confession not requiring any more than the magistrate seeing to it that the church is not persecuted...this seems like a very weak reading of the words of the document, quoted above. And the government's task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in his Word.

I have a hard time taking your suggestion seriously.

Was it merely coincidence that the WCF was revised by Americans at the time that several States were holding their Constitutional Conventions seeking ratifying of that document which forbade the Establishment of Religion?

Let me make a quick short summary on my understanding here and see where it leads to. I am sorry I have been too busy to listen to or read the links. But I am not sure I understand why two Kingdom terminology is needful.

From my understanding Christ has a mediatorial Kingdom and has dominion right now over both Church and State. They are both responsible to His reign and dominion whether or not they acknowledge it or not. Each of these two institutions in this Domain of Christ have their separate identities and responsibilities. If I am not mistaken this teaching came out of the second reformation. So the point is that there is actually one Kingdom with two differing offices, so to speak.

Just stating what I have learned.... Now I will try and go decipher what is up. I am going to listen to the Office Hours episode right now. It is the only one I haven't listened to yet. Then I guess I will spend the next week reading through the links.

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Let me make a quick short summary on my understanding here and see where it leads to. I am sorry I have been too busy to listen to or read the links. But I am not sure I understand why two Kingdom terminology is needful.

From my understanding Christ has a mediatorial Kingdom and has dominion right now over both Church and State. They are both responsible to His reign and dominion whether or not they acknowledge it or not. Each of these two institutions in this Domain of Christ have their separate identities and responsibilities. If I am not mistaken this teaching came out of the second reformation. So the point is that there is actually one Kingdom with two differing offices, so to speak.

Just stating what I have learned.... Now I will try and go decipher what is up. I am going to listen to the Office Hours episode right now. It is the only one I haven't listened to yet. Then I guess I will spend the next week reading through the links.

Someone is listening to the RPs! I would wonder how two kingdom theology understands the mediatorial kingship of Christ over the nations.

Moderation

Folks, this thread is off to a good start, but off-topic or inflammatory comments are going to be deleted without further explanation.

Carry on.

I'd also encourage you to listen to WSC prof. David Van Drunen's inaugural lecture, which can be found at the WSC website. There will you hear him explain this version of 2k theology has the Christian living under a "dual ethic": one in the church, another in the world.

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Was it merely coincidence that the WCF was revised by Americans at the time that several States were holding their Constitutional Conventions seeking ratifying of that document which forbade the Establishment of Religion?

No.

The revisions were carried out @ Philly at the same time that the rebels were meeting there.

It is important to keep in mind that *only* 13 of the colonies rebelled (Upper & Lower Canada as well as Nova Scotia stayed out, albeit with some localised fighting by a few rebels).

The only delegates that contributed to the "American" revisions were from the colonies then in rebelion. Since support for the rebelion only ever extended to 1/3 of the population of the 13 colonies, and since the 100,000+ Loyalists that relocated were from the merchant & upper classes (thus more likely to provide the leadership in both church & state) I have often wondered what the effect would have beein on the subsequent development of the US form of Presbyterianism.

IOW, if the only people that sent delegates were already functioning as proto-2ker's & since those elders (& future elders) that would have provided the bulwark against such (imo) inovations, left the (newly formed) country rather then submitt their conscience to this new (unbiblical, in the view of the loyalists) form of government. How did this affect the development of American Presbyterianism?

Would it not be similar to how the split into Northern & Southern churches affected many issues?

Perhaps this is too simplistic, but my understanding of a key difference between magisterial Reformed two kingdoms teaching and the nouveau two kingdoms teaching can summed up in the question; does the civil magistrate have an obligation as God’s diakonos to enforce all Ten Commandments, or is he limited in the new covenant to only enforcing some aspects of the last six?

A related question would be; does the civil magistrate have an obligation to prefer and protect the public worship and exercise of the Christian religion over and against all other religions.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Was it merely coincidence that the WCF was revised by Americans at the time that several States were holding their Constitutional Conventions seeking ratifying of that document which forbade the Establishment of Religion?

No.

The revisions were carried out @ Philly at the same time that the rebels were meeting there.

It is important to keep in mind that *only* 13 of the colonies rebelled (Upper & Lower Canada as well as Nova Scotia stayed out, albeit with some localised fighting by a few rebels).

The only delegates that contributed to the "American" revisions were from the colonies then in rebelion. Since support for the rebelion only ever extended to 1/3 of the population of the 13 colonies, and since the 100,000+ Loyalists that relocated were from the merchant & upper classes (thus more likely to provide the leadership in both church & state) I have often wondered what the effect would have beein on the subsequent development of the US form of Presbyterianism.

IOW, if the only people that sent delegates were already functioning as proto-2ker's & since those elders (& future elders) that would have provided the bulwark against such (imo) inovations, left the (newly formed) country rather then submitt their conscience to this new (unbiblical, in the view of the loyalists) form of government. How did this affect the development of American Presbyterianism?

Would it not be similar to how the split into Northern & Southern churches affected many issues?

This sounds like a great Ph.D topic...

Are we agreed that A two-kingdoms theology has deep reformationsal roots? Does not Calvin posit a version? Even further back, is not Augustine's Two Cities arguable the first extra-biblical two-kingdoms position? Even leaving aside the question of biblical roots, surely this is an acceptably factual observation?

If so, then is it not better to distinguish the criticism, as Tom seeks to do in the post prior to this. MIght it not help for those who are opposed to Klinean-Clarkian-VanDrunenian two-kingdoms theology to identify in what ways it is different from "classical" two-kingdom theology?

This would at least help avoid the tendency towards perjoration. (Not saying that's occured here, just observing it frequently does in discussions of this topic.)