Thread: Relationship between Church and State

I have read this essay for the first time by Dr David Vandrunen entitled "The Two Kingdoms Doctrine and the relationship of the church and state in the early Reformed tradition" where he focuses on the writings of Calvin, Rutherford and in even more detail Turretin with regard to the relationship between Church and State. I find it a very honest and reasonable assessment. Vandrunen admits that the application of the Two Kingdom Theology by these Reformers with regard to the responsibilities of the Civil Magistrate were not as most advocate today but he also distinguishes it from the Lutheran view with regard to external government and the Church. To me the 4 pages of Bibliography from page 13-17 make this a valuable resource in an of itself.

I would be interested to see if there are those willing to read this article and interact with Vandrunen's argumentation. I'm not interested in a debate on Theonomy or Two Kingdom Theology specifically as there are other threads serving that purpose. I want the article and argumentation of Dr Vandrunen to be the focus of this thread if that's possible.

FYI: The same article is available here entirely on one page (easier to print).

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

FYI: The same article is available here entirely on one page (easier to print).

Thanks but I have to sign up for a temporary library card. If I do is it all on one page Casey?

That's strange. The first couple times I looked at that page today it displayed the entire article. Now it doesn't. Okay, nevermind!

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

That's strange. The first couple times I looked at that page today it displayed the entire article. Now it doesn't. Okay, nevermind!

Bait and Switch!

Wait, it works. Search Google for "The two kingdoms doctrine and the relationship of church and state in the early Reformed tradition" (with the quotes), then click on the fourth link. If you come from Google it displays the whole article.

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

Wait, it works. Search Google for "The two kingdoms doctrine and the relationship of church and state in the early Reformed tradition" (with the quotes), then click on the fourth link. If you come from Google it displays the whole article.

Outstanding! Thank You Sir!

Interesting Article. It seems that the debate comes down to what can be known by natural law/light of nature. The Older 2k folks have the whole moral law/decalogue while the new ones feel uncomfortable having the civil magistrate explicitly exercise the power of the first table.

If true, then I have a lot of work to do, because I really struggle with the temporal jurisdiction part.

By the end of the article I still was not convinced that the two kingdom idea was really two kingdoms. It seems that if God rules over the civil magistrate in any way then he will rule by His law. I don't see how Christians outside of Govt can help but call the magistrate to maximize his abiding by the law of the One that the Govt power comes from. I understand the author and Turretin et al feel that the distinction of how God rules the Church and the Govt is important; I just can't see operatively how it makes much of a difference. To me it seems simple: God rules Heaven and Earth; the Christian is required to Glorify God; the Christian must do all the scripture allows to bring that glory to the Triune He who redeemed us; therefore the Christian must say sin is sin regardless who/what office is sinning; and further to change that office/officer to bring about more godliness if lawfully possible.

My 2 cents
Chuck

I've always been interested in the two kingdom thought when I heard it on White Horse Inn. Thanks for bring it up again.

Thanks for that link to the whole article. I have been wanting to print this article but didn't want to copy and paste. Whew!

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Interesting Article. It seems that the debate comes down to what can be known by natural law/light of nature. The Older 2k folks have the whole moral law/decalogue while the new ones feel uncomfortable having the civil magistrate explicitly exercise the power of the first table.

Could you elaborate some?

Originally Posted by Beth Ellen Nagle

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Interesting Article. It seems that the debate comes down to what can be known by natural law/light of nature. The Older 2k folks have the whole moral law/decalogue while the new ones feel uncomfortable having the civil magistrate explicitly exercise the power of the first table.

Could you elaborate some?

The author talks about "inconsistent attribution of religious responsibilities to civil magistrates" by the Old school 2kers. I do not think it was inconsistent, it was just that if one believes that the light of nature leads to one true God and entire decalogue is found in the natural law, then one is going to be forced into what we now think of as a Theocratic society.

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by Beth Ellen Nagle

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Interesting Article. It seems that the debate comes down to what can be known by natural law/light of nature. The Older 2k folks have the whole moral law/decalogue while the new ones feel uncomfortable having the civil magistrate explicitly exercise the power of the first table.

Could you elaborate some?

The author talks about "inconsistent attribution of religious responsibilities to civil magistrates" by the Old school 2kers. I do not think it was inconsistent, it was just that if one believes that the light of nature leads to one true God and entire decalogue is found in the natural law, then one is going to be forced into what we now think of as a Theocratic society.

CT

I think he's right (if I understand what he's saying) about the inconsistency of the older 2Kers. If one believes that the 10 commandments (or natural law) is the standard by which the civil government should operate, then I don't see how one can avoid theocracy. The 2Kers that I have been reading avoid this inconsistency by their understanding of common grace. A good place to start reading (if you desire) about this alternative would be Lee Irons at www.upper-register.com. Under his papers there is one titled Reformed Theocrats. He lays out this view. It's quite helpful in understanding the common grace alternative to theocracy (at least as understood by Kline and co.).

As a side note, for those of you that automatically dismiss Meredith Kline (as I have for many years), I think he deserves to be read by those interested in Reformed theology.

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by Beth Ellen Nagle

Could you elaborate some?

The author talks about "inconsistent attribution of religious responsibilities to civil magistrates" by the Old school 2kers. I do not think it was inconsistent, it was just that if one believes that the light of nature leads to one true God and entire decalogue is found in the natural law, then one is going to be forced into what we now think of as a Theocratic society.

CT

I think he's right (if I understand what he's saying) about the inconsistency of the older 2Kers. If one believes that the 10 commandments (or natural law) is the standard by which the civil government should operate, then I don't see how one can avoid theocracy. The 2Kers that I have been reading avoid this inconsistency by their understanding of common grace. A good place to start reading (if you desire) about this alternative would be Lee Irons at www.upper-register.com. Under his papers there is one titled Reformed Theocrats. He lays out this view. It's quite helpful in understanding the common grace alternative to theocracy (at least as understood by Kline and co.).

As a side note, for those of you that automatically dismiss Meredith Kline (as I have for many years), I think he deserves to be read by those interested in Reformed theology.

But the older 2kers were not trying to avoid Theocracy, so I am not sure how they are inconsistent.

Also in order to propose an alternative to something, you first need to show what was wrong with the original. I have yet to see the problem with the original 2k that necessitated the new version.

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

The author talks about "inconsistent attribution of religious responsibilities to civil magistrates" by the Old school 2kers. I do not think it was inconsistent, it was just that if one believes that the light of nature leads to one true God and entire decalogue is found in the natural law, then one is going to be forced into what we now think of as a Theocratic society.

CT

I think he's right (if I understand what he's saying) about the inconsistency of the older 2Kers. If one believes that the 10 commandments (or natural law) is the standard by which the civil government should operate, then I don't see how one can avoid theocracy. The 2Kers that I have been reading avoid this inconsistency by their understanding of common grace. A good place to start reading (if you desire) about this alternative would be Lee Irons at www.upper-register.com. Under his papers there is one titled Reformed Theocrats. He lays out this view. It's quite helpful in understanding the common grace alternative to theocracy (at least as understood by Kline and co.).

As a side note, for those of you that automatically dismiss Meredith Kline (as I have for many years), I think he deserves to be read by those interested in Reformed theology.

But the older 2kers were not trying to avoid Theocracy, so I am not sure how they are inconsistent.

Also in order to propose an alternative to something, you first need to show what was wrong with the original. I have yet to see the problem with the original 2k that necessitated the new version.

CT

Yes, you're correct, if theocracy is what they intended then they are not inconsistant (at least on that point).

I can only speak for myself in terms of what necessitated a new version: the New Testament!

Seriously though, I have had great difficulty squaring my former views (theocracy and, before that, Theonomy) with the NT teaching on our relationship to the state.

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

I think he's right (if I understand what he's saying) about the inconsistency of the older 2Kers. If one believes that the 10 commandments (or natural law) is the standard by which the civil government should operate, then I don't see how one can avoid theocracy. The 2Kers that I have been reading avoid this inconsistency by their understanding of common grace. A good place to start reading (if you desire) about this alternative would be Lee Irons at www.upper-register.com. Under his papers there is one titled Reformed Theocrats. He lays out this view. It's quite helpful in understanding the common grace alternative to theocracy (at least as understood by Kline and co.).

As a side note, for those of you that automatically dismiss Meredith Kline (as I have for many years), I think he deserves to be read by those interested in Reformed theology.

But the older 2kers were not trying to avoid Theocracy, so I am not sure how they are inconsistent.

Also in order to propose an alternative to something, you first need to show what was wrong with the original. I have yet to see the problem with the original 2k that necessitated the new version.

CT

Yes, you're correct, if theocracy is what they intended then they are not inconsistant (at least on that point).

I can only speak for myself in terms of what necessitated a new version: the New Testament!

Seriously though, I have had great difficulty squaring my former views (theocracy and, before that, Theonomy) with the NT teaching on our relationship to the state.

The inference from "the light of nature teaches that there is one true God", to the state will act as if there is one true God, aka a Theocracy, seems simple and overwhelming. Why is this not overwhelming to you?

CT

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

But the older 2kers were not trying to avoid Theocracy, so I am not sure how they are inconsistent.

Also in order to propose an alternative to something, you first need to show what was wrong with the original. I have yet to see the problem with the original 2k that necessitated the new version.

CT

Yes, you're correct, if theocracy is what they intended then they are not inconsistant (at least on that point).

I can only speak for myself in terms of what necessitated a new version: the New Testament!

Seriously though, I have had great difficulty squaring my former views (theocracy and, before that, Theonomy) with the NT teaching on our relationship to the state.

The inference from "the light of nature teaches that there is one true God", to the state will act as if there is one true God, aka a Theocracy, seems simple and overwhelming. Why is this not overwhelming to you?

CT

I don't hold (nor do Klineans to my knowledge) that men are not judged for this knowledge. They will be judged when Christ returns. You make a leap, in my estimation, from the fact that there is one God, for which men will be held accountable, and that the state must enforce this notion.

The inference you suggest is clear to someone who has a theocratic predisposition. It is not clear to those of us who do not.

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

Yes, you're correct, if theocracy is what they intended then they are not inconsistant (at least on that point).

I can only speak for myself in terms of what necessitated a new version: the New Testament!

Seriously though, I have had great difficulty squaring my former views (theocracy and, before that, Theonomy) with the NT teaching on our relationship to the state.

The inference from "the light of nature teaches that there is one true God", to the state will act as if there is one true God, aka a Theocracy, seems simple and overwhelming. Why is this not overwhelming to you?

CT

I don't hold (nor do Klineans to my knowledge) that men are not judged for this knowledge. They will be judged when Christ returns. You make a leap, in my estimation, from the fact that there is one God, for which men will be held accountable, and that the state must enforce this notion.

The inference you suggest is clear to someone who has a theocratic predisposition. It is not clear to those of us who do not.

No, I have not made any leap. I just simply said that it is clear to nature that there is one God (no Bible reading is necessary). If this is true, then you are saying that the state should enforce an irrational standard (acting as if there is more than one God or no God). How can you advocate the state behaving irrationally?

CT

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

They will be judged when Christ returns.

Magistrates will be judged also, which is why they should utilise what they know by the light of nature for governing their inferiors.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Jon Peters

They will be judged when Christ returns.

Magistrates will be judged also, which is why they should utilise what they know by the light of nature for governing their inferiors.

I agree with this principle but, given the fact that not all governments are ruled by men who know the Law of God, this principle does not "inexorably" lead to a Theocracy as previously noted.

For instance, governments in the Middle East will be judged according to the light of nature but they have no fruition in it to lead them to a proper understanding of God. They, nevertheless, retain enough to prosecute some crimes that the Law condemns as reprehensible and promote others that the Law likewise would judge.

I find the Book of Daniel to be a good example of a proper 2K view where Daniel and his peers uncompromisingly uphold God as the Sovereign of the world but, when faced with unjust laws restricting their worship, continue to worship according to the liberty of their conscience but don't organize a revolt. In both cases their civil disobedience has to be spied upon by those who are intent upon their destruction and they, uncompromisingly, proclaim that God is God of gods and God of kings.

I don't have a problem with the notion that God overrules all but I just don't think that the call of a Christian is necessarily toward open rebellion when the the State is not what the State would be if the magistrates were governing according to the light of nature and the light of nature was not supressed by their rebellion against God in their fallen condition. In other words, I don't think it's reasonable to have a Biblical objection to upholding the first four commandments by a magistrate but it would require that the magistrate be Christian himself and have an understanding of what he was upholding.

Is there a difference between "natural law" and Biblical Law?

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Is there a difference between "natural law" and Biblical Law?

Depending upon what you mean by Law (moral or ceremonial), I don't believe there is. What I believe they have in common, however, is illumination is required in order to have fruition in either.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

In other words, I don't think it's reasonable to have a Biblical objection to upholding the first four commandments by a magistrate but it would require that the magistrate be Christian himself and have an understanding of what he was upholding.

Certainly the lawful authority of the magistrate does not depend on him being a Christian, but he and the nation he rules will be judged for not being Christian, Isaiah 60:12. Hence it is in the interests of Christians to pray and witness for the Christianising of the nation and its rulers.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

In other words, I don't think it's reasonable to have a Biblical objection to upholding the first four commandments by a magistrate but it would require that the magistrate be Christian himself and have an understanding of what he was upholding.

Certainly the lawful authority of the magistrate does not depend on him being a Christian, but he and the nation he rules will be judged for not being Christian, Isaiah 60:12. Hence it is in the interests of Christians to pray and witness for the Christianising of the nation and its rulers.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Is there a difference between "natural law" and Biblical Law?

Depending upon what you mean by Law (moral or ceremonial), I don't believe there is. What I believe they have in common, however, is illumination is required in order to have fruition in either.

If there are two kinds of God's revelation- natural (through the attributes of His Creation) and special (through Scripture), perhaps there are two kinds of law?

Natural revelation speaks of a kind of revelation that was picked up in the common law (of England) as "crimes against nature."

Special revelation (Scripture alone) speaks of the person and work of Christ, the ordinary means of salvation but also of "the Law" (ceremonial, civil and moral).

Perhaps this is reflected in our own Declaration of Independence:

Declaration of Independence
United States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.