James Anderson on 2K theology

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some quotes posted in the blog....

I want to focus particular attention on what VanDrunen asserts about the role of Scripture in the two kingdoms. Although VanDrunen argues (correctly, in my view) that Scripture affirms the existence of natural law, understood as a divine moral standard revealed in the conscience and binding on all humans, he goes on to insist that the moral teachings of Scripture are intended only for those in the spiritual kingdom. Here are some representative statements from A Biblical Case for Natural Law:
Here are some representative statements from A Biblical Case for Natural Law:

Scripture is not the appropriate moral standard for the civil kingdom. (p. 38)

The Old Testament Scriptures were not given to the world at large but to the people of Israel. . . . Neither were the New Testament Scriptures given to the world at large but to the church, the new covenant people. Thus, there is a covenant reality — a redemptive reality — that grounds the moral instruction of Scripture. Biblical moral instructions are given to those who are redeemed and are given as a consequence of their redemption. The Ten Commandments, for example, provide not an abstract set of principles but define the life of God’s redeemed covenant people. (p. 39)

The point is that the moral instruction given in Scripture cannot be taken simply as the moral standard for the world at large. The purpose of Scripture’s moral instruction is to regulate and define the lifestyle of God’s redeemed covenant people. To lift the imperatives in Scripture from the context of the indicatives that ground them is to misuse Scripture and force it to serve purposes for which God did not give it. (p. 39)

Scripture is the sacred text given to God’s covenant people whom he has redeemed from sin. . . . Given its character, therefore, Scripture is not given as a common moral standard that provides ethical imperatives to all people regardless of their religious standing. (p. 53)


Thanks for that Charlie and thanks for your comment also. I also believe That Roman's 2 has something to say about it.

(Rom 2:1) Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

(Rom 2:2) But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

(Rom 2:3) And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

(Rom 2:4) Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

(Rom 2:5) But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

(Rom 2:6) Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

(Rom 2:7) To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

(Rom 2:8) But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

(Rom 2:9) Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

(Rom 2:10) But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

(Rom 2:11) For there is no respect of persons with God.

(Rom 2:12) For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

(Rom 2:13) (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

(Rom 2:14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

(Rom 2:15) Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

(Rom 2:16) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Charlie's reply....
CharlieJ
I recently finished Cornelis Venema’s Accepted and Renewed in Christ, and his chapter “Law and Gospel” contains information that makes a 2K view look doubtful for Calvin. You said that 2K believes that “the ‘common’ (or ‘civil’) kingdom was instituted in creation and formally established in the Noahic covenant. It is inhabited by all humans regardless of their spiritual state, it is governed by natural law alone, and it will not continue into the eschaton.”

Here are the contrasting quotes from Venema:

“Calvin’s use of the term “law” is exceedingly diverse, yet the root idea from which his particular uses of the term derive is that of the law as God’s orderly will for creation.” (229)

“Though Calvin does not develop a natural ethic or assume that this law is rightly apprehended or obeyed apart from God’s gracious action in Christ, he nowhere sets the obedience of redeemed humanity against that of God’s original intention for his creatures. Rather, as one would expect, Calvin interprets God’s redemptive dealings with humanity as consistent with his creative purpose.” (230-1)

These conclusions are congruent with Venema’s overall interpretation of Calvin’s theology:

“By adopting this distinction and arrangement, Calvin attempts to fulfill two objectives, both of which witness persuasively to the grace of God the Redeemer in Christ: first, to establish the identity, albeit not absolute congruity, between the knowledge of the Triune Redeemer and Creator, and thereby suggest that redemption involves God’s free decision to remain faithful to his creative purpose, despite the sinful creature’s unfaithfulness and willful disobedience; and second, to establish the inexcusability of this unfaithfulness in contrast with the gratuitous mercy exhibited in God’s redemption in Christ.” (51)

“The Mediator of creation and redemption is one and the same, and his restoration of fellowship between God and humanity in redemption represents, in this respect, the reassertion of his claim and rightful place as Mediator of creation.” (70)

So, if Venema’s interpretation of Calvin is correct, then 2K seems to press a greater distinction between natural law and spiritual (?) law than Calvin would have allowed.
 
You know your quotes PuritanCovenanter raise for me a concern about VanDrunen's strong two kingdom view, S2K. If the world operates on a different ethic than the church than does this ethic contradict the biblical ethic at all? If so than on what basis does one permit this contradiction? If it doesn't than claiming that there are two different ethics is rather superflous at best. These are the sorts of questions, among others, that I would ask VanDrunen if I ever had the chance to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top