Article Critical of "Two Kingdom" view

[Marrow Man]

There is a reason I no longer engage in these debates on the Puritan Board.

Well, we do need to play nice in the sandbox with one another or we will have to lock down yet another PB thread. Since this is my baby, I would rather not see that happen.

Healthy discussion would be nice, however. Let's refocus on these questions: Did the Reformers generally hold to a 2K view? Is this the view of the majority of the confessions? Were the Reformers influenced by medieval notions and therefore wrong? What is each side attempting to say?

 

[R Harris]

There is a reason I no longer engage in these debates on the Puritan Board.

Well, we do need to play nice in the sandbox with one another or we will have to lock down yet another PB thread. Since this is my baby, I would rather not see that happen.

Healthy discussion would be nice, however. Let's refocus on these questions: Did the Reformers generally hold to a 2K view? Is this the view of the majority of the confessions? Were the Reformers influenced by medieval notions and therefore wrong? What is each side attempting to say?

To me, it is troubling how people read things with such obvious presuppositional biases. I really get the impression that the 2K people read the article through their lenses and then proceed to attack DeMar because they don't care much for him or any other theonomist/NC.

But to your inquiry; I don't think there is any doubt that a careful, objective reader of Calvin, Knox, or any other major reformer AFTER Luther (again note that DeMar stated UP TO Luther - Calvin and Knox could be classified as being after Luther, if only slightly) would understand where they stood on this issue. In fact, all one has to do is read the ORIGINAL WCF at Chapter 23, section 3 to get the answer as to where the vast majority of the 17th century reformers stood. (I say original because the AMERICANS obviously revised section 3 in 1789, having been caught up in US Constitution fever and enlightenment thinking ON THIS ISSUE rather than the teachings of Scripture.)

But to the saying of Benjamin (Backwoods Presbyterian), I do concur with him. It is not as if these arguments have been made for the first time. Just like with EP, or baptism, or any of the other controversial doctrinal positions, the same arguments get repeated again . . . and again . . . and again . . . until people give up from exhaustion.

So, like with Backwoods Presbyterian, my posting has become rare and selective as with also the selection of topics I even care to read.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Lawrence, perhaps it would be helpful if you were to define "judicial/forensic dispensationalism" so that we are working from the same definition and so that there are no misunderstandings or unintentional insults.

Something else to consider: to what extent did the Reformers hold to a 2K view? For instance, would it be fair to accuse (as the article would seem to do) Luther, the Reformed theologian of justification par excellence, of forensic dispensationalism? Perhaps so, perhaps not; I'm just asking the question at this point.

I think at its core the difference is this: the Reformed view of 2k has the civil magistrate enforcing both tables of the Decalogue, while the neo 2k only has the second table.

I think all other differences come out of this difference.

CT

 

[tcalbrecht]

Lawrence, perhaps it would be helpful if you were to define "judicial/forensic dispensationalism" so that we are working from the same definition and so that there are no misunderstandings or unintentional insults.

Something else to consider: to what extent did the Reformers hold to a 2K view? For instance, would it be fair to accuse (as the article would seem to do) Luther, the Reformed theologian of justification par excellence, of forensic dispensationalism? Perhaps so, perhaps not; I'm just asking the question at this point.

I think at its core the difference is this: the Reformed view of 2k has the civil magistrate enforcing both tables of the Decalogue, while the neo 2k only has the second table.

I think all other differences come out of this difference.

CT

That is it in a nutshell. WSC-style 2K is not your (Reformed fore-)father's 2K.

 

[ChristianTrader]

None of the anti-2K comments in this thread so far have addressed the 2K view that I understand. But, then again, the caricature is a lot more fun (and easier) to attack.

Do you Theonomists really think you can engage secular culture by a theology that believes rebellious children should be stoned to death? Oh, wait. Is that a caricature?

Um, we are to engage secular culture with the truth. If that truth is something that the culture does not like, does that imply that we somehow water it down to make it palatable?

If we are not to water it down, then I am not sure what the point of your second paragraph is?

CT

 

[tcalbrecht]

Gleened from another list, this link to the Dordt College faculty publication "Pro Rege" contains two articles challenging neo 2K.

http://www.dordt.edu/publications/pro_rege/crcpi/Pro_Rege_Mar_2009.pdf

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Very interesting discussion in an area I am ignorant of.

Hermonta (CT), what do you see as the truth we are to engage secular culture with?

I am about to give a public lecture ("The Da Vinci Code vs. the Greek New Testament"), and am aiming for non-Christians to attend, not Christians. The "truth" I will try to present (in the 2nd half) is the relevance of the Word of God, the reality of the presence of God, the wickedness of man, the coming judgment, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and everlasting life.

I am fishing for souls, to add to God's Kingdom, and to our church. If the Lord grants us success, I expect some opposition for spoiling the kingdom of the world, which in its entirety lies in wickedness (1 John 5:19).

Do you think I err in my outlook?

 

[ww]

Didn't Christ say in John 18:36 "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

No one who embraces the 2k view is saying there is more than one king and to make such a claim is specious. We just happen to embrace what Christ says in the Scripture that His is a heavenly kingdom and not an earthly one. I believe the rhetoric regarding the discussion of 2k vs theonomy occuring online borders on sinfulness and as Reformed brethren we should be able to have a civil discussion around this topic. I will be the first to admit that I have sinned in this regard.

I hope you don't take my comments in that regard. I, too think the internet debate has become too heated. I also agree that the Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. I also, don't believe that the 2K view teaches a two king view (Although I have heard that more than once.) I just disagree with the way the 2K view seems to fairly consistently lead to a retreat into no longer being salt and light in the world in which we have be placed.

-----Added 5/5/2009 at 11:49:14 EST-----

To me, the way it is being touted by WHI and others is judicial / forensic dispensationalism

This is the rhetoric I'm referring to which is an absolute ad homimen attack. Calling Mike Horton and other Men of God "dispensationalist".

I'm sorry that you see it that way. If you look carefully, I was not addressing the men. I was addressing the view. I referenced the men because they are the most prominent spokesmen. I also am not calling them 'dispensationalist'. I am calling the view 'judicial / forensic dispensationalism'.

I really didn't mean to his such a nerve.

Lawrence,

You are looking at it with a theonomist lense. The 2k view is not saying that we should not be active in the policital sphere nor is it saying we shouldn't be salt and light but that we should understand how we as Christians and even more importantly the Church should be involved. Whereas a Theonomist would want to take their particular application of the Law (and there are numerous and when it all came out in the wash among all the Evangelicals there would be no consensus) and force it upon Society. Rather than coerce others into obeying the Law of God as Theonomy wants to do we believe that we should be about the business of Evangelism and reaching the lost so that the may have the Law fulfilled on their behalf as we who know Christ.

I am a Libertarian and have been more politically active since becoming Libertarian than I was when I was a Conservative Republican for 2 decades. We are both at the Tea Parties. I oppose Government intrustion, support States rights, want our taxes cut and want the Freedoms granted to me by the Constitution to be upheld. What I don't want is for the Church and the State to be in bed together. I don't want the State telling the Church how to do things nor do I want the Church trying to be the State. I want the Church to be the Church. Does that make sense?

As far as the "Dispensationalist" charge you need to substantiate it that is why I called it what it was "ad hominen". Lay out your proof that what Michael Horton teaches is Dispensational and we can go from there. Actually you didn't hit a nerve at all I'm just calling it the way I see it. I don't think what 2k Theology teaches ala Westminster Seminary in Escondido teaches is "Dispensational" I believe it to be Confessional. And those who want to charge it as "Dispensational" need to lay it out for the rest of us so we can respond appropriately.

In any event not sure if the discussion can be salvaged or not but as Christian Reformed brothers in Christ we should be able to do so civily. However some have said that it hasn't been possible and if that is the case then we will have to agree to disagree.

-----Added 5/5/2009 at 05:20:00 EST-----

What do you think about the following article by Gary DeMar, which criticizes the two kingdom approach to society?

Caricature to the point of not even being worthy of a response to be quite frank.

 

[LawrenceU]

Wayne, thanks for the reply. What I am responding to is the increasing 'retreatism' that I see and hear discussed coming from those that use the 2k view as their reasoning.

As to the the charge of 'judicial/forensic dispensational' moniker. I will admit that I have a theonomic bent. But, I don't believe that it is jaundicing what I see. I'm not referring to 'Dispensationalism' but using the term 'dispensational' because the extremes to which I see some proponents of the 2k view go regarding the Christian's place in the public arena. They appear to divorce the Law of God from having any application in arenas beyond the Church and Christians. I am not referring here to the Levitical Code. Thus it is 'dispensational'. God's Law only applies to the church. It cannot and should not be expected that the world system be brought into compliance with it.

Right now I am battling a pretty bad stomach bug and don't have time to go back and dig out the references. I'm sorry for that. I'm just not up to it. But, when I hear the current voices telling Christians that they should not be involved in political action, should not call the world to account for violating the Law, and other things as this I sit and scratch my head. I agree that political action is not going to 'bring the Kingdom of God to earth'. But, that does not mean that we should not work diligently to have our laws reflect the nature of God.

Further, I have heard pastors lately saying that the Church has no business making public statements regarding public policy. This was in the context of homosexual marriage. Their reason? Public law is in the realm of the world. We have nothing to say to that. We can make statements within the church, but it is not our role to speak to the world regarding issues that pertain to the church. These were Reformed men.

 

[Scott1]

May we have a definition of the "two kingdom view" from people on both sides of this issue?

 

[Jon Peters]

None of the anti-2K comments in this thread so far have addressed the 2K view that I understand. But, then again, the caricature is a lot more fun (and easier) to attack.

Do you Theonomists really think you can engage secular culture by a theology that believes rebellious children should be stoned to death? Oh, wait. Is that a caricature?

Um, we are to engage secular culture with the truth. If that truth is something that the culture does not like, does that imply that we somehow water it down to make it palatable?

If we are not to water it down, then I am not sure what the point of your second paragraph is?

CT

CT, my point was that we don't ( and shouldn't) stone rebellious children. We don't live under the typological nation of Israel. It sometimes seems as though Theonomists evangelize with a law book. Israel could not stand under the yoke of the law. What makes you think that modern nations can stand under the yoke of the law? Lest someone be confused as to what exactly I mean by the law, I am referring to those elements commonly referred to as civil.

 

[sastark]

None of the anti-2K comments in this thread so far have addressed the 2K view that I understand. But, then again, the caricature is a lot more fun (and easier) to attack.

Do you Theonomists really think you can engage secular culture by a theology that believes rebellious children should be stoned to death? Oh, wait. Is that a caricature?

Um, we are to engage secular culture with the truth. If that truth is something that the culture does not like, does that imply that we somehow water it down to make it palatable?

If we are not to water it down, then I am not sure what the point of your second paragraph is?

CT

CT, my point was that we don't ( and shouldn't) stone rebellious children. We don't live under the typological nation of Israel. It sometimes seems as though Theonomists evangelize with a law book. Israel could not stand under the yoke of the law. What makes you think that modern nations can stand under the yoke of the law? Lest someone be confused as to what exactly I mean by the law, I am referring to those elements commonly referred to as civil.

Jon, two things:

1. Israel couldn't stand under the yoke of the law as a prerequisite for salvation. No theonomist claims that keeping the law is necessary for salvation, however, there is more than one use of the law (I know you know that, but it seems from your statement above that it momentarily slipped your mind). There is no indication in Scripture that the civil laws of Israel were a burden to the Israelites.

2. What makes you think modern societies can stand under the yoke of any law? Every civilization has law breakers (that is, people who cannot/will not keep the law). What makes the US Penal Code a better alternative to OT case law?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

What do you think about the following article by Gary DeMar, which criticizes the two kingdom approach to society?

I think the article presses an extreme that the only type of Two Kingdom view is one that is indifferent to neighbor and is concerned only with pietistic self-improvement. There are gradations between Anabaptist views of the secular culture being against the Kingdom and the Kingdoms merging to the point that there is no distinction between religious and civil authority.

I agree with the idea that a self-absorbed view of the Christian life that only sees Christianity as dealing with life in the Body as fundamentally flawed. It ignores the requirement that Christians love their neighbor by what the Law positively requires. The Word of God, properly understood, ought to cause us to desire to love neighbor not simply as an evangelical target to get them into a lifeboat and out of the sinking ship of culture.

My love of the image of God in my neighbor impels me to treat those under my authority with care and concern. When I was in command and served in what constituted a magisterial role (with the ability to take liberty away) I could not check my Biblical convictions at the door. I rendered justice in the application of law in order to protect those that had been harmed by the violations of others. I was even able to appeal to the Law written on men's hearts to reprove them of the violation of integrity to sworn oaths to obey lawful orders.

At the same time, however, I distinctly remember a Reformed talk show host in SoCal around 2000-2002 who was so concerned with the Church having a militant role in transforming culture that he once brought a Roman Catholic fellow on his show. The gentleman was concerned that Churches were not preaching enough on the evils of culture and, in particular, the slaughter of innocent children through abortion.

On the one hand, I stand with many who are reviled by the death of millions of innocents. On the other hand, I could not reckon that the group had the right to dictate to ministers the proportion of sermons that had to be devoted to the topic of speaking out about the evils of culture from the pulpit. If they didn't meet this minimal requirement then his group would picket that Church and placard pictures of aborted infants to shame the Church that they were not militant enough in preaching against this evil.

My question to the Roman Catholic when I called into the show was simple: How is a Roman Catholic in any position to dictate to a Preacher of the Word what he is going to preach on? He was shocked that I challenged that he even was in a position to understand the Scriptures and their proper exposition and the host quickly changed the subject rather than get into the issue of whether or not the Roman Catholic Church was even preaching the Gospel.

Interestingly enough, we have a thread right now about whether or not preaching ought to be topical or expositional. If expositional then what is the Minister to do if the text he is faithfully expositing does not preach explicitly on the 6th Commandment? Ought ministers, in this culture, forego expository preaching because the Word does not regularly enough deal with the wickedness we find ourselves in and among? When has the culture ever been in a state where a preacher can leave the topic of wicked men oppressing and killing innocents for it certainly existed at the time of Paul when Roman citizens regularly abandoned unwanted children?

The Word, properly preached, transforms men. Men transformed ought to care about and love their neighbor and be impelled by the love of Christ to love neighbor in vocation and as they engage the culture. Even so, ministers of the Word need to be properly distinguished for the role they serve as undershepherds for Christ's flock. There are evils within the boundaries of the Church and elder care and shepherding does not mean that the minister spends the majority of his energy as the organizer of a Political Action Committee to transform society.

Proper preaching and catchetical instruction of the entire flock will have a quality all their own. Christians of the early centuries transformed the culture around them because they became known as people that would take in infants that nobody wanted. They were ridiculed for the fact that, although in poverty themselves, they would feed and care for another mouth that could give them nothing in return.

I can't quite articulate what I'm trying to say and feel like I'm rambling. I just believe some of us spend far too much time planning for the ideal community rather than starting where we currently live among men and women stumbling about in darkness who need to see that our love for Christ causes us to love our neighbor in ways that is surprising. Are men and women attracted to Christ by the fact that we constantly tell them how stupid they are for being dead in their sins or are we willing to bless them in ways that they cannot understand.

My friends, Matt and Karen, had to return an adopted child to a mother who lives on a reservation and is dead in her sins and trespasses. They returned the child with tears knowing that the mother would likely not care for the baby but had no other choice. They could have railed against her foolishness but, instead, mailed hundreds of dollars of baby supplies and gave instructions to the mother on how to care for this infant. They brought a $200 gift certificate to the mother to buy infant supplies and, in the presence of the lawyers, shared the Gospel to this woman who desperately needed the light of God's redemption in Christ. The lawyers present were moved to tears by the love of a Church that sent forth this gift not because the mother had been wise but because they loved this child and wanted its good and could do no more to bless the child.

That's what the Gospel does.

 

[Marrow Man]

I can't quite articulate what I'm trying to say and feel like I'm rambling.

No, I think you said things quite well. The gospel transforms, pure and simple. Even Rushdooney said that.

Thank you for one of the best response posts I've read on the PB.

 

[chbrooking]

I don't see the 2k view as necessarily a position of retreat. Again, caricatures. Sure, there are some, perhaps many. But retreat isn't inherent to the position itself.

 

[Casey]

Let's refocus on these questions: Did the Reformers generally hold to a 2K view? Is this the view of the majority of the confessions? Were the Reformers influenced by medieval notions and therefore wrong? What is each side attempting to say?

May we have a definition of the "two kingdom view" from people on both sides of this issue?

I've detected the term "two kingdoms" being used in three different ways (if you want to define terms, here's a start; I've included quotes). I don't believe any Reformed confessions/catechisms follow the WSC understanding of the doctrine (as espoused, e.g., by VanDrunen's A Biblical Case for Natural Law). My preliminary conclusion is that the WSC doctrine is a novelty piggy-backing familiar terminology, but I'm happy to be corrected. I'm also convinced that the WSC2K vs. theonomy framework of the debate is a false dichotomy; it's not an either-or, there are other options.

 

[MW]

In terms of evaluating different teachings on Church and State (the two kingdoms), it is always good to look at the subject historically to see what options are available and where the lines of demarcation are to be drawn. There are basically only four views: the Romanist, with its teaching of temporal supremacy, makes the State subservient to the Church; the Anabaptist, which turns the Church into a State or otherwise disowns the State altogether; the Lutheran (not Luther, but post 19th century Lutheranism), so separates the State from the Church as to make the State a law unto itself and the Christian to live two entirely separate lives, one public and one private, with religion being relegated to the private sector; and the Reformed (which Luther and early Lutheranism shared to some extent), which maintains the distinction and connection of Church and State as both existing under the rule of God.

It should be noted that the American revision to the Westminster Standards is still essentially reformed in that it maintains the distinction and connection of Church and State, but merely disowns the characteristic of the Scottish and Dutch churches in which a specific denomination was established. The idea of a "Christian State" was still a feature of American Presbyterian churches up until the separations from mainline churches took place in the 20th century.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

but we are already getting news that the two kingdoms could be a very dangerous way to live.

the 2 kingdom view is dangerous because it is wrong. Nowhere is scripture is a Christian remotely allowed to live a compartmentalized life. A Christian is sanctified in his person by the Holy Spirit, and this sanctification affects his family, his church and his community.

Let me give you an example. I have a Pentecostal Christian friend that attended University in the caribbean. He became the President of the student government association. Certain monies are given to the student government association to engage in activities. One of the activities of former Presidents was the throwing of riotous bacchanalia parties (typical). When my friend became President, his Christian conscience wouldn't permit it, and he banned such parties under his tenure, and used the money to do a construction project. Do you think the Lord was happy that my friend didn't succumb to the Two Kingdom's view? Yes. And even if throwing this party was law, my friend would have delayed it until his tenure was up.

 

[R Harris]

It should be noted that the American revision to the Westminster Standards is still essentially reformed in that it maintains the distinction and connection of Church and State, but merely disowns the characteristic of the Scottish and Dutch churches in which a specific denomination was established. The idea of a "Christian State" was still a feature of American Presbyterian churches up until the separations from mainline churches took place in the 20th century.

Not sure I agree with this, I would have to see the evidence. Once the Americans made the WCF revision to Chapter XXIII section 3 in 1789, I believe that the majority of Presbyterian denominations essentially adopted a 2K view. To my knowledge, only the American Covenanters (RPCNA) maintained the original section 3 language, but there might have been others. I know that Chris would have the answer!

But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies? Hard to believe that, given the number of heresies that arose in the US during the 19th century. But yes, you are correct that after the declines in orthodoxy really accelerated after WWII, the 2K and event the baptistic view of the state started having supremacy.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I haven't studied this Randy but have thought about doing so; and have breezed through Irons paper and am skeptical of the extent to which he takes the revisions for an interpretive grid for the unmodified sections which Bahnsen raises. But when all is said and done I seriously doubt the views of 1788 equate to what is being presented by some as a 2 kingdoms view. But that is all I'm prepared to say.
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/1788_revision.pdf

It should be noted that the American revision to the Westminster Standards is still essentially reformed in that it maintains the distinction and connection of Church and State, but merely disowns the characteristic of the Scottish and Dutch churches in which a specific denomination was established. The idea of a "Christian State" was still a feature of American Presbyterian churches up until the separations from mainline churches took place in the 20th century.

Not sure I agree with this, I would have to see the evidence. Once the Americans made the WCF revision to Chapter XXIII section 3 in 1789, I believe that the majority of Presbyterian denominations essentially adopted a 2K view. To my knowledge, only the American Covenanters (RPCNA) maintained the original section 3 language, but there might have been others. I know that Chris would have the answer!

But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies? Hard to believe that, given the number of heresies that arose in the US during the 19th century. But yes, you are correct that after the declines in orthodoxy really accelerated after WWII, the 2K and event the baptistic view of the state started having supremacy.

 

[Marrow Man]

But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies? Hard to believe that, given the number of heresies that arose in the US during the 19th century. But yes, you are correct that after the declines in orthodoxy really accelerated after WWII, the 2K and event the baptistic view of the state started having supremacy.

Hmmm, that is an interesting observation. But I'm assuming the Church of Scotland is still under the original wording of the WCF. I'm not up on my British governmental powers, but what has the magistrate there done in the last 200 years to suppress heresies? I'm not voicing that as a challenge, but as a genuine inquiry.

 

[ww]

but we are already getting news that the two kingdoms could be a very dangerous way to live.

the 2 kingdom view is dangerous because it is wrong. Nowhere is scripture is a Christian remotely allowed to live a compartmentalized life. A Christian is sanctified in his person by the Holy Spirit, and this sanctification affects his family, his church and his community.

Let me give you an example. I have a Pentecostal Christian friend that attended University in the caribbean. He became the President of the student government association. Certain monies are given to the student government association to engage in activities. One of the activities of former Presidents was the throwing of riotous bacchanalia parties (typical). When my friend became President, his Christian conscience wouldn't permit it, and he banned such parties under his tenure, and used the money to do a construction project. Do you think the Lord was happy that my friend didn't succumb to the Two Kingdom's view? Yes. And even if throwing this party was law, my friend would have delayed it until his tenure was up.

This unfortunately is erecting a strawman as no 2ker I know including myself is saying that one must live a compartmentalized life or violate his conscience or God's Law in the public sphere.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies? Hard to believe that, given the number of heresies that arose in the US during the 19th century. But yes, you are correct that after the declines in orthodoxy really accelerated after WWII, the 2K and event the baptistic view of the state started having supremacy.

Hmmm, that is an interesting observation. But I'm assuming the Church of Scotland is still under the original wording of the WCF. I'm not up on my British governmental powers, but what has the magistrate there done in the last 200 years to suppress heresies? I'm not voicing that as a challenge, but as a genuine inquiry.

Actually, the Church of Scotland modified the original section with a disclaimer upon adopting it, something to the effect that "this does not entail a principal of persecution." One of our Confessional scholars could probably provide a more accurate quote. Many of the Divines were concerned with Erastianism.

 

[R Harris]

Hmmm, that is an interesting observation. But I'm assuming the Church of Scotland is still under the original wording of the WCF. I'm not up on my British governmental powers, but what has the magistrate there done in the last 200 years to suppress heresies? I'm not voicing that as a challenge, but as a genuine inquiry.

You are correct, my friend. Sadly, this issue applies to the whole WCF, as we see with the "degree of subscription" debate going on. Just because one says he agrees to and abides by the WCF doesn't actually mean that he really believes it or really abides by it. I am sure the Church of Scotland has many offenders.

As for the nation of Scotland, that sad story has been plain for all to see for the last century or so. The fact that John Knox is buried somewhere under or very close to a parking lot should tell us all we need to know.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

As I noted above, that was the Free Church in the mid 19th century which rejected persecuting principles. As far as the 17th century, you are probably thinking of the "adopting act" of the Church of Scotland where they note how they regarded the magistrates' calling of synods.

But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies? Hard to believe that, given the number of heresies that arose in the US during the 19th century. But yes, you are correct that after the declines in orthodoxy really accelerated after WWII, the 2K and event the baptistic view of the state started having supremacy.

Hmmm, that is an interesting observation. But I'm assuming the Church of Scotland is still under the original wording of the WCF. I'm not up on my British governmental powers, but what has the magistrate there done in the last 200 years to suppress heresies? I'm not voicing that as a challenge, but as a genuine inquiry.

Actually, the Church of Scotland modified the original section with a disclaimer upon adopting it, something to the effect that "this does not entail a principal of persecution" or something to that effect. One of our Confessional scholars could probably provide a more accurate quote. Many of the Divines were concerned with Erastianism.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Yes, that's it. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Very interesting discussion in an area I am ignorant of.

Hermonta (CT), what do you see as the truth we are to engage secular culture with?

I am about to give a public lecture ("The Da Vinci Code vs. the Greek New Testament"), and am aiming for non-Christians to attend, not Christians. The "truth" I will try to present (in the 2nd half) is the relevance of the Word of God, the reality of the presence of God, the wickedness of man, the coming judgment, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and everlasting life.

I am fishing for souls, to add to God's Kingdom, and to our church. If the Lord grants us success, I expect some opposition for spoiling the kingdom of the world, which in its entirety lies in wickedness (1 John 5:19).

Do you think I err in my outlook?

Looks good to me.

 

[Casey]

This unfortunately is erecting a strawman as no 2ker I know including myself is saying that one must live a compartmentalized life or violate his conscience or God's Law in the public sphere.

Not entirely a straw man, since the WSC2K view posits a dual ethic. We have yet to see what happens when the rubber meets the road in America. In Germany we know what happened with the Lutherans and the crisis their two-kingdom theology brought them.

 

[MW]

Once the Americans made the WCF revision to Chapter XXIII section 3 in 1789, I believe that the majority of Presbyterian denominations essentially adopted a 2K view.

If one reads the Southern Presbyterian Thornwell and compares him with the Scottish Presbyterian Bannerman, it will be seen that the two agree with the moral obligations of the State towards Chritianity, but only differ on the State's duty towards establishing a particular church.

One needs to be careful when mapping out the state of the question not to confuse voluntaryism with political pluralism.

But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies?

I think many old schoolers would agree in principle that it is the magistrate's duty to suppress heresy, but the problem is with how this can be practically carried out under a so-called democracy.

 

[ww]

This unfortunately is erecting a strawman as no 2ker I know including myself is saying that one must live a compartmentalized life or violate his conscience or God's Law in the public sphere.

Not entirely a straw man, since the WSC2K view posits a dual ethic. We have yet to see what happens when the rubber meets the road in America. In Germany we know what happened with the Lutherans and the crisis their two-kingdom theology brought them.

Casey. Demonstrate the Dual Ethic rather than just continue to make assertions. There is a dual citizenship as layed out by Christ in the New Testament when He commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesars and He stated clearly that His Kingdom was not of this world. Doesn't mean we aren't politically active. What it does mean is we understand our roles.

Hitler isn't the result of Lutherans "two kingdom theology" and to suggest such is frivolous at best . So are you saying that Luther, the father of the Reformation is responsible for the Killing of 6 million Jews? Sounds like you are when in fact it may have been the result of a misinterpretation of 2k theology. It isn't the silver bullet you were looking for however I know it sounds good. Just another caricature.

I'd like to see the rubber hit the road with Theonomy and its various abberations.