All things 2K

Silas22

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello,

I just finished VanDrunen’s “Living in God’s two Kingdoms”, and thoroughly enjoyed it. However, I’ve heard that VanDrunen’s take is not “historic 2k”, and Lutherans also have a different take. I’m looking for resources that would compare/contrast the various 2k views. Any help is appreciated!
 

RWD

Puritan Board Freshman
James Anderson has some interesting observations. Two posts can be found here:


Here’s an intro to one of his posts:

In a previous post I posed some questions about David VanDrunen’s defense of Two-Kingdom (2K) doctrine and raised a general objection to his position (and to similar 2K views). In response to a comment on that thread, I tried to boil down the objection as follows. On my reading, VanDrunen seems to be committed to all of the following claims:

(K1) When living as citizens of the common kingdom, people should observe the moral standard of that kingdom.

(K2) The moral standard for the common kingdom is natural law (and only natural law).

(K3) When living as citizens of the common kingdom, Christians should observe the distinction between the two kingdoms.

(K4) It is not a deliverance of natural law that Christians should observe the distinction between the two kingdoms.

In a nutshell, my objection is that these claims form an inconsistent set: they can’t all be true. So the question is whether 2K advocates really are committed to all four claims, and if not, which do they reject.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
Hello,

I just finished VanDrunen’s “Living in God’s two Kingdoms”, and thoroughly enjoyed it. However, I’ve heard that VanDrunen’s take is not “historic 2k”, and Lutherans also have a different take. I’m looking for resources that would compare/contrast the various 2k views. Any help is appreciated!
We have had many fruitful discussions on this. You could, or should, consult Dr. Vandrunen's work on this. My own view is a bit nuanced than others, I take into account the practical reality of laws, both natural and man-made, and move from there. I believe it is biblical to affirm natural law and philosophical.
You do have extremes though in this discussion, the Irons come to mind. But I think we must first recognize the complexity of the situation before getting at answers.
Any questions of my take on the subject I would be happy to answer.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
James Anderson has some interesting observations. Two posts can be found here:


Here’s an intro to one of his posts:

In a previous post I posed some questions about David VanDrunen’s defense of Two-Kingdom (2K) doctrine and raised a general objection to his position (and to similar 2K views). In response to a comment on that thread, I tried to boil down the objection as follows. On my reading, VanDrunen seems to be committed to all of the following claims:

(K1) When living as citizens of the common kingdom, people should observe the moral standard of that kingdom.

(K2) The moral standard for the common kingdom is natural law (and only natural law).

(K3) When living as citizens of the common kingdom, Christians should observe the distinction between the two kingdoms.

(K4) It is not a deliverance of natural law that Christians should observe the distinction between the two kingdoms.

In a nutshell, my objection is that these claims form an inconsistent set: they can’t all be true. So the question is whether 2K advocates really are committed to all four claims, and if not, which do they reject.
I don't see why 2K advocates must hold to these premises, if you could elaborate that would be appreciated.
 

RWD

Puritan Board Freshman
I don't see why 2K advocates must hold to these premises, if you could elaborate that would be appreciated.
I didn’t say one had to. In fact, the point James was making was that to try to do so ends in contradiction. That’s just a matter of strict logic regardless of whether he has interpreted VD right or not. His point was that based upon his reading of VD, that’s what VD is stuck with. The link will take you to a rigorous analytic analyses of VD’s 2K.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
James Anderson has some interesting observations. Two posts can be found here:


Here’s an intro to one of his posts:

In a previous post I posed some questions about David VanDrunen’s defense of Two-Kingdom (2K) doctrine and raised a general objection to his position (and to similar 2K views). In response to a comment on that thread, I tried to boil down the objection as follows. On my reading, VanDrunen seems to be committed to all of the following claims:

(K1) When living as citizens of the common kingdom, people should observe the moral standard of that kingdom.

(K2) The moral standard for the common kingdom is natural law (and only natural law).

(K3) When living as citizens of the common kingdom, Christians should observe the distinction between the two kingdoms.

(K4) It is not a deliverance of natural law that Christians should observe the distinction between the two kingdoms.

In a nutshell, my objection is that these claims form an inconsistent set: they can’t all be true. So the question is whether 2K advocates really are committed to all four claims, and if not, which do they reject.
Ok took time to think on this because I wanted to give a fair response. K1 doesn't make any distinction of believers vs unbelievers living in the common kingdom. Neither does K2, as a believer my moral views are shaped by both natural law and scripture. K3 and K4 seem irrelevant. Because natural law can't save, hence the need for scripture. K3 is oversimplifying the issue, hence the fruitful discussions I've started on practical issues. Does K3 mean distinction or complete separation? Two different things. All in all its a simplified view of a complex issue.
 
Top