Article Critical of "Two Kingdom" view

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bret and Mark,

Have no issues with folks wanting to find out for themselves as I am only stating my opinion based on my experience over the years and the number of years as referenced is debatable but in the very least five. In any event I have deleted my post.

Have a Great Evening Gentleman!
 
Why not three?

The household (family) is also a defined government in God's word. Is it not odd that this government isn't given much ink in the modern age? Shouldn't this really be a three-kingdom argument?

Theognome
 
That's why Kuyper distinguished between three basic spheres: family, church, and state.

Althusius made the family the basic social unit. Here's a brief intro:

In Order for Leviathan to Flourish He Must First Kill Natural Law Heidelblog

from article said:
The most enduring part of the argument by resistance theorists was their appeal to divinely-revealed, transcendent norms to which the magistrate and the governed are bound. They understood that the civil order is not a covenant of grace but a covenant of works. This is a distinction that has been lost on both the religious right and left who, in their monocovenantal politics, seem to be bent on making the civil order a covenant of grace and thence to achieve their utopia of Christian-Democratic Socialism or a “Christian-Republican America.”

I'm familiar with Kuyper's work. As for the article, I think it starts a point, but never reaches it. The declination of the family as a true government within today's Church was (In my ignorant opinion) born of Marxist doctrine as opposed to that of the enlightenment. Individual empowerment- the government of self as unto the whole was critical to this movement, expesially in the Marxist idea of the role of women in familial government; as expressed succinctly in the works of Engels.

Theognome
 

The post states:

In the early 1570s, Theodore Beza would write Concerning the Right of Magistrates to be followed by the anonymously written, Vindication Against Tyrants among other seminal resistance-theory texts. These two texts did not rely only on natural law. They also appealed to the history of redemption and conveniently blurred the line between national Israel and the 16th-century state.

One wonders how a Calvinist who believes in the noetic effects of sin is able to appeal to natural law without also appealing to the history of redemption which provides the clearest teaching of that law. That there is one true God who is to be worshipped and served is clearly taught by the light of nature (WCF 21:1), so there is no reason why a modern advocate of natural law should not agree with 16th century advocates that the State is bound to worship and serve the one true God, unless of course he denies what the light of nature teaches.
 

The post states:

In the early 1570s, Theodore Beza would write Concerning the Right of Magistrates to be followed by the anonymously written, Vindication Against Tyrants among other seminal resistance-theory texts. These two texts did not rely only on natural law. They also appealed to the history of redemption and conveniently blurred the line between national Israel and the 16th-century state.

One wonders how a Calvinist who believes in the noetic effects of sin is able to appeal to natural law without also appealing to the history of redemption which provides the clearest teaching of that law. That there is one true God who is to be worshipped and served is clearly taught by the light of nature (WCF 21:1), so there is no reason why a modern advocate of natural law should not agree with 16th century advocates that the State is bound to worship and serve the one true God, unless of course he denies what the light of nature teaches.

Emphasis mine. How does the State worship God? What would that look like?
 
One wonders how a Calvinist who believes in the noetic effects of sin is able to appeal to natural law without also appealing to the history of redemption which provides the clearest teaching of that law. That there is one true God who is to be worshipped and served is clearly taught by the light of nature (WCF 21:1), so there is no reason why a modern advocate of natural law should not agree with 16th century advocates that the State is bound to worship and serve the one true God, unless of course he denies what the light of nature teaches.

=========================================================
One wonders indeed--considering in addition the Canons of Dort confession that the natural light that remains in unregenerate man is insufficient to order things aright, even in things "natural and civil".

Clark's fellow 2ker, Lee Irons, exposes Clark's dilemma in arguing for natural law as the standard for the magistrate:

http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?cat=88
 
One wonders how a Calvinist who believes in the noetic effects of sin is able to appeal to natural law without also appealing to the history of redemption which provides the clearest teaching of that law. That there is one true God who is to be worshipped and served is clearly taught by the light of nature (WCF 21:1), so there is no reason why a modern advocate of natural law should not agree with 16th century advocates that the State is bound to worship and serve the one true God, unless of course he denies what the light of nature teaches.

=========================================================
One wonders indeed--considering in addition the Canons of Dort confession that the natural light that remains in unregenerate man is insufficient to order things aright, even in things "natural and civil".

Clark's fellow 2ker, Lee Irons, exposes Clark's dilemma in arguing for natural law as the standard for the magistrate:

The Upper Register Blog Natural Law

Good night ... what are we ever to do if the leading spokesman for R2Kt can't agree among themselves what Natural Law teaches? If the experts can't agree how will us lesser mortals ever come to a consensus on what Natural law "clearly teaches?"

But let us ask ourselves why do Irons and Clark disagree on what Natural Law teaches on this subject? The answer obviously is not that Natural law is unclear about this subject but rather that their presuppositions differ about the subject at hand and so their conclusions about what Natural law teaches on the subject vary significantly.

This, of course, is the ongoing problem with natural law theories. They propagate like rabbits on Viagra because each man can explain the details of his or her natural law theory according to what is right in their own eyes.

No one can doubt that Natural law was appealed to by men like Calvin, Rutherford, and Philippe Duplessis-Mornay, but one has to take into account that such appeals could only find traction because they were developed within the context of Christendom. As such there already existed a cultural consensus that natural law conclusions could appeal to, even if they didn't consciously attempt to do so.

But what shall we expect of Natural law theories that spring up in a culture where decreasingly there is nothing like a pre-existent cultural consensus? Well, we should expect that each sub-culture that is striving for cultural hegemony will each have their own version of Natural Law that they expect all other sub-cultures to recognize. Clearly this must be recognized as truth if even Dr. Clark and Dr. Irons can't agree on what Natural Law teaches.
 
I'll be honest with all of you, I don't like these threads because they bring out the party spirit that Durham notes is common in violations of the 9th Commandment. Are there differences and nuances in views on the 2K view? Yes. What I detect however is a willingness to depict any 2K view that differs from one's own as akin to an Anabaptist retreat from all contact with society.

One of the reasons people on either extreme of this issue end up leaving this board or being shown the door is because they can only paint another's view in the worst possible light. What really disturbs me as well are those that come out of the woodworks when these topics come up. Nary a word on other doctrinal issues but 2K comes up and it's an opportunity to dump all over the 2K views of others and "sloganize" about how the view leads to every vice including tooth decay and bad breath.

Those that have axes to grind, go grind them somewhere else. I want sober discussions of the subject here because the real issue is lost in all the dust that's kicked up with labels of escapism and the like. Frankly, I have little respect for people that can only engage in polemics that consist of sound bites with no acknowledgement of the reasons why those perspectives are held and a response to the strongest arguments therein.
 

The post states:

In the early 1570s, Theodore Beza would write Concerning the Right of Magistrates to be followed by the anonymously written, Vindication Against Tyrants among other seminal resistance-theory texts. These two texts did not rely only on natural law. They also appealed to the history of redemption and conveniently blurred the line between national Israel and the 16th-century state.

One wonders how a Calvinist who believes in the noetic effects of sin is able to appeal to natural law without also appealing to the history of redemption which provides the clearest teaching of that law. That there is one true God who is to be worshipped and served is clearly taught by the light of nature (WCF 21:1), so there is no reason why a modern advocate of natural law should not agree with 16th century advocates that the State is bound to worship and serve the one true God, unless of course he denies what the light of nature teaches.

I think the bolded part is key. If one believes that the light of nature teaches that there is one true God, then to have to civil magistrate avoid enforcing or ruling in accordance with this, would be akin to having the civil magistrate attempting to be neutral towards 1+1=2.

CT
 
Abuse of a principle does not legitimate disuse.

Rev. Winzer's statement here zeroes in on what I think is going on with
the R2kt proponents.

It appears to me that they are overreacting to the abuse of certain principles. For example:

1. Theonomy per se is an irrefutable principle. God's law is supreme over all of life. As CVT said, it's "either theonomy or autonomy".

The abuse of this theonomy principle can be found in Christian Reconstructionism.

The R2kt overreaction contends that God's revealed law is to govern the church only, and that the magistrate in the so-called "common realm" is to be governed by appeals to natural law only, i.e, it is inappropriate to appeal to special revelation to inform the magistrate on public policy.

2. That the gospel transforms us into new creatures subjecting all of our life to Christ's rule is an irrefutable principle.

The abuse of this transformation principle can be found in certain brands of neo-kuyperian transformationalism, such that it has become indistinguishable from the "social gospel".

The WSC-2k overreaction is to contend that outside the church, there is no essential difference between what the believer or the unbeliever does in living life, e.g., in vocation, in education, etc. The extension of God's kingdom is essentially equivalent with what is found in the visible church.
 
Abuse of a principle does not legitimate disuse.

Rev. Winzer's statement here zeroes in on what I think is going on with
the R2kt proponents.

It appears to me that they are overreacting to the abuse of certain principles. For example:

1. Theonomy per se is an irrefutable principle. God's law is supreme over all of life. As CVT said, it's "either theonomy or autonomy".

The abuse of this theonomy principle can be found in Christian Reconstructionism.

The R2kt overreaction contends that God's revealed law is to govern the church only, and that the magistrate in the so-called "common realm" is to be governed by appeals to natural law only, i.e, it is inappropriate to appeal to special revelation to inform the magistrate on public policy.

2. That the gospel transforms us into new creatures subjecting all of our life to Christ's rule is an irrefutable principle.

The abuse of this transformation principle can be found in certain brands of neo-kuyperian transformationalism, such that it has become indistinguishable from the "social gospel".

The WSC-2k overreaction is to contend that outside the church, there is no essential difference between what the believer or the unbeliever does in living life, e.g., in vocation, in education, etc. The extension of God's kingdom is essentially equivalent with what is found in the visible church.

What I find concerning is that you resort to R2kt nomenclature (which refers to those who embrace Two Kingdom Theology as having contracted a virus) because YOU don't agree with it. From my vantage point Two Kingdom Theology is a distrinction that Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers embraced. Just because it doesn't fit into your view doesn't make it radical. I appreciate you calling out the abuses but at that same time it doesn't make the foundational principles of theonomony and transformationalism any more accurate. And if you are heartily recommending the site you shared with us I would have to say you aren't as "balanced" as you want to purport in this thread.

-----Added 5/16/2009 at 11:02:21 EST-----

Instead what we had was the Roman and Anglican church forbidding public worship of the one true God.

Abuse of a principle does not legitimate disuse.

Let's face it Theocracy which Theonomy is in its basic form minus God being the Ruler instead having Civil Magistrates rule didn't work in Israel how much more so in America or any other Nation.

-----Added 5/16/2009 at 11:12:48 EST-----

One wonders how a Calvinist who believes in the noetic effects of sin is able to appeal to natural law without also appealing to the history of redemption which provides the clearest teaching of that law. That there is one true God who is to be worshipped and served is clearly taught by the light of nature (WCF 21:1), so there is no reason why a modern advocate of natural law should not agree with 16th century advocates that the State is bound to worship and serve the one true God, unless of course he denies what the light of nature teaches.

=========================================================
One wonders indeed--considering in addition the Canons of Dort confession that the natural light that remains in unregenerate man is insufficient to order things aright, even in things "natural and civil".

Clark's fellow 2ker, Lee Irons, exposes Clark's dilemma in arguing for natural law as the standard for the magistrate:

The Upper Register Blog Natural Law

Good night ... what are we ever to do if the leading spokesman for R2Kt can't agree among themselves what Natural Law teaches? If the experts can't agree how will us lesser mortals ever come to a consensus on what Natural law "clearly teaches?"

But let us ask ourselves why do Irons and Clark disagree on what Natural Law teaches on this subject? The answer obviously is not that Natural law is unclear about this subject but rather that their presuppositions differ about the subject at hand and so their conclusions about what Natural law teaches on the subject vary significantly.

This, of course, is the ongoing problem with natural law theories. They propagate like rabbits on Viagra because each man can explain the details of his or her natural law theory according to what is right in their own eyes.

No one can doubt that Natural law was appealed to by men like Calvin, Rutherford, and Philippe Duplessis-Mornay, but one has to take into account that such appeals could only find traction because they were developed within the context of Christendom. As such there already existed a cultural consensus that natural law conclusions could appeal to, even if they didn't consciously attempt to do so.

But what shall we expect of Natural law theories that spring up in a culture where decreasingly there is nothing like a pre-existent cultural consensus? Well, we should expect that each sub-culture that is striving for cultural hegemony will each have their own version of Natural Law that they expect all other sub-cultures to recognize. Clearly this must be recognized as truth if even Dr. Clark and Dr. Irons can't agree on what Natural Law teaches.


Good grief Theonomist like North, Bahnsen, Rushdoony, and others have all had various disagreements over how to apply "Theonomy" in America and not share with us in all instances what Theonomy "clearly teaches", to say they were likeminded would be naive. Natural Law and Two Kingdom advocates certainly do not agree on everything just as Theonomist. I would say that Natural Law as given by God in General Revelation even works in uncivilized tribes in the deepest parts of Africa because in many instances their government is structured around what is written in their hearts which is God's Law to the point that Romans 1:18-20 says they are without excuse.
 
Maybe it is Christian Reconstructionism that most of us (2Kers) are afraid of? Perhaps a thread on that is what we need?
 
I'll be honest with all of you, I don't like these threads because they bring out the party spirit that Durham notes is common in violations of the 9th Commandment. Are there differences and nuances in views on the 2K view? Yes. What I detect however is a willingness to depict any 2K view that differs from one's own as akin to an Anabaptist retreat from all contact with society.

One of the reasons people on either extreme of this issue end up leaving this board or being shown the door is because they can only paint another's view in the worst possible light. What really disturbs me as well are those that come out of the woodworks when these topics come up. Nary a word on other doctrinal issues but 2K comes up and it's an opportunity to dump all over the 2K views of others and "sloganize" about how the view leads to every vice including tooth decay and bad breath.

Those that have axes to grind, go grind them somewhere else. I want sober discussions of the subject here because the real issue is lost in all the dust that's kicked up with labels of escapism and the like. Frankly, I have little respect for people that can only engage in polemics that consist of sound bites with no acknowledgement of the reasons why those perspectives are held and a response to the strongest arguments therein.

:amen: And as an active Member of this board on a variety of topics if you find that either my posts as of late or my blog that I just created and linked to my signature focus on Two Kingdom Theology it is because I'm rather "NEW" to the vantage point and find it helpful to either discuss it here on PB or express it on my Blog. If you find that I seem rather direct in my language it is because I'm finding unfortunately for some I've contracted a virus in need of a cure which I find very insulting. :barfy:

With that said I definitely do not want to become a One Tune Dude as there are so many other nuances of the Reformed Faith that I enjoy and so many other doctrines that we all hold in common. Thank You for this gentle but effective rebuke brother.
 
Are there any thorough critiques of the natural-law/two-kingdoms doctrine (of the WSC type or others) in print?
 
The WSC-2k overreaction is to contend that outside the church, there is no essential difference between what the believer or the unbeliever does in living life, e.g., in vocation, in education, etc. The extension of God's kingdom is essentially equivalent with what is found in the visible church.

I pretty much agree that there is no essential distinction, the issue is does that mean Christians should "slow down" or the heathens should "catch up"?

CT

-----Added 5/16/2009 at 03:43:45 EST-----

Maybe it is Christian Reconstructionism that most of us (2Kers) are afraid of? Perhaps a thread on that is what we need?

That you are afraid does not imply that what you are afraid of is worthy to be feared.

CT

-----Added 5/16/2009 at 03:47:46 EST-----

Abuse of a principle does not legitimate disuse.

Rev. Winzer's statement here zeroes in on what I think is going on with
the R2kt proponents.

It appears to me that they are overreacting to the abuse of certain principles. For example:

1. Theonomy per se is an irrefutable principle. God's law is supreme over all of life. As CVT said, it's "either theonomy or autonomy".

The abuse of this theonomy principle can be found in Christian Reconstructionism.

The R2kt overreaction contends that God's revealed law is to govern the church only, and that the magistrate in the so-called "common realm" is to be governed by appeals to natural law only, i.e, it is inappropriate to appeal to special revelation to inform the magistrate on public policy.

2. That the gospel transforms us into new creatures subjecting all of our life to Christ's rule is an irrefutable principle.

The abuse of this transformation principle can be found in certain brands of neo-kuyperian transformationalism, such that it has become indistinguishable from the "social gospel".

The WSC-2k overreaction is to contend that outside the church, there is no essential difference between what the believer or the unbeliever does in living life, e.g., in vocation, in education, etc. The extension of God's kingdom is essentially equivalent with what is found in the visible church.

What I find concerning is that you resort to R2kt nomenclature (which refers to those who embrace Two Kingdom Theology as having contracted a virus) because YOU don't agree with it. From my vantage point Two Kingdom Theology is a distrinction that Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers embraced. Just because it doesn't fit into your view doesn't make it radical. I appreciate you calling out the abuses but at that same time it doesn't make the foundational principles of theonomony and transformationalism any more accurate. And if you are heartily recommending the site you shared with us I would have to say you aren't as "balanced" as you want to purport in this thread.

Um, we have already clearly established that there is an old and new form of Two Kingdom theology. If you are going to be defending or asserting the new form, you then have no right to claim those who defended the old form as your fore bearers.

CT
 
Last edited:
Um, we have already clearly established that there is an old and new form of Two Kingdom theology. If you are going to be defending or asserting the new form, you then have no right to claim those who defended the old form as your fore bearers.

CT


I sure can. Regardless of whether the application of their Two Kingdom Theology was in line with their orthodoxy or not doesn't make my view any less within the Reformed Tradition. I'll leave you with a quote by Calvin on Two Kingdom Theology that I wholeheartedly embrace along with a quote by Christ Himself.

From the 1559 Institutes 3.19.15 (Battles edition)

Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone, let us first consider that there is a twofold government in man (duplex esse in homine regimen): one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually called the “spiritual” and the “temporal” jurisdiction (not improper terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life—not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately. For the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter regulates only outward behavior. The one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority.

Luke 12: 13-14: Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?”

Christ had more productive things to do with his time then to seek to rule on Civil matters left up to Caesar. :rolleyes:
 
Um, we have already clearly established that there is an old and new form of Two Kingdom theology. If you are going to be defending or asserting the new form, you then have no right to claim those who defended the old form as your fore bearers.

CT


I sure can. Regardless of whether the application of their Two Kingdom Theology was in line with their orthodoxy or not doesn't make my view any less within the Reformed Tradition. I'll leave you with a quote by Calvin on Two Kingdom Theology that I wholeheartedly embrace along with a quote by Christ Himself.

If it is not in accordance with the Reformers then where in the tradition is it to be found? Anabaptists?

If it is clear to nature that there is one true God, how in the world is the civil magistrate going to be able to be neutral towards the worshipping of gods that the light of nature says is nonsense?

From the 1559 Institutes 3.19.15 (Battles edition)

Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone, let us first consider that there is a twofold government in man (duplex esse in homine regimen): one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually called the “spiritual” and the “temporal” jurisdiction (not improper terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life—not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately. For the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter regulates only outward behavior. The one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority.

Luke 12: 13-14: Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?”

Christ had more productive things to do with his time then to seek to rule on Civil matters left up to Caesar. :rolleyes:

From these quotes, you see Christ and Calvin defending that the civil magistrate should only enforce the second table?

John the Baptist should have kept his mouth shut about Herod taking his brother's wife.

And the next time someone talks about the million plus unborn legally murdered a year, your response is/should be "Caesar is doing Caesar's business".

CT
 
Um, we have already clearly established that there is an old and new form of Two Kingdom theology. If you are going to be defending or asserting the new form, you then have no right to claim those who defended the old form as your fore bearers.

CT


I sure can. Regardless of whether the application of their Two Kingdom Theology was in line with their orthodoxy or not doesn't make my view any less within the Reformed Tradition. I'll leave you with a quote by Calvin on Two Kingdom Theology that I wholeheartedly embrace along with a quote by Christ Himself.

If it is not in accordance with the Reformers then where in the tradition is it to be found? Anabaptists?

If it is clear to nature that there is one true God, how in the world is the civil magistrate going to be able to be neutral towards the worshipping of gods that the light of nature says is nonsense?

Luke 12: 13-14: Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?”

Christ had more productive things to do with his time then to seek to rule on Civil matters left up to Caesar. :rolleyes:

From these quotes, you see Christ and Calvin defending that the civil magistrate should only enforce the second table?

John the Baptist should have kept his mouth shut about Herod taking his brother's wife.

And the next time someone talks about the million plus unborn legally murdered a year, your response is/should be "Caesar is doing Caesar's business".

CT

Anabaptist? I'm done!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top