R2K..radical two kingdom...or reformed two kingdom?

[jwright82]

Read a book called "The Two Kingdoms" about R2K. But he defined R2K as "Reformed 2 Kingdom" theology. I thought that was more fair than the "radical" nomenclature. Anyway what's the difference? I myself am closer to a reformed 2 kingdoms approach. Any thoughts? Is there a difference between the two?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The Reformed two kingdoms approach advocates the civil magistrate upholding the first table of the law and, with that, the establishment of true religion. Neo-Two Kingdom theology is a radical departure from the position of the original Reformed confessions. Thus, it is hardly unfair to call it Radical 2K, although I prefer just to use the Neo-2K label to avoid offence.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

James,
"Reformed" might be as a means of distinguishing and specifying that such is distinct from a Lutheran 2K doctrine, which has not faded from their traditional vocabulary during the last 500yrs, as it may have faded from the Reformed vocab.

"Radical" might also be more of a pejorative moniker. I think I remember it being used to criticize what was called simply "2K" (when I first encountered the term) about 10yrs ago.

Either way, the "Reformed" label is either to specify, or to reclaim the letter.

I see 2K (or R2K) as offering a way of understanding a Christian way in the world--one that is not a fusion of society and Christianity (one-kingdom and/or theonomy in various forms); neither the church-over-state (Roman), or state-over-church (Erastian); nor one that is much interested in the church's acting as a counselor to the state, whether as partner or as prophet (denouncing or approving). So, in the latter case, also not as a second-pillar to the cultural or national edifice. The church is... not of this world, another kingdom entirely.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Read a book called "The Two Kingdoms" about R2K. But he defined R2K as "Reformed 2 Kingdom" theology. I thought that was more fair than the "radical" nomenclature. Anyway what's the difference? I myself am closer to a reformed 2 kingdoms approach. Any thoughts? Is there a difference between the two?

R2K isn't a very useful abbreviation at this point. Some use it for either Reformed or radical, and some apply radical to what simply is the historic Reformed doctrine. The core question is whether the magistrate has any public responsibility with respect to the first table of the law, as Daniel stated, or whether the Bible has a place in public discourse as opposed to natural law alone. If the answer is no to either question, it is not the historic Reformed Two Kingdoms position.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

To be charitable, I do think that some good things have come out of Neo-2K. These include a renewed emphasis on natural law (though if the state is to uphold NL, it must also uphold the first table of the law), a corrective to those who try to get the Bible to say more than it actually does on political matters or who advocate a regulative principle of civil government (though Neo-2K errs in other extreme and makes the Bible say less than it actually does), and it is a corrective to some of the more utopian aspects of modern theonomy (though it errs in defect by virtually denying that there is any common equity in the Mosaic judicial law).

 

[TheOldCourse]

To be charitable, I do think that some good things have come out of Neo-2K. These include a renewed emphasis on natural law (though if the state is to uphold NL, it must also uphold the first table of the law), a corrective to those who try to get the Bible to say more than it actually does on political matters or who advocate a regulative principle of civil government (though Neo-2K errs in other extreme and makes the Bible say less than it actually does), and it is a corrective to some of the more utopian aspects of modern theonomy (though it errs in defect by virtually denying that there is any common equity in the Mosaic judicial law).

Oh I concur entirely. Neo-2k and the controversy it generated has, in many ways, done us a great service by reacquainting much of the Reformed church community with 2K theology of all stripes and accordingly has seen the revival of classical 2k thought as a corrective to the dominance of neo-Calvinism and theonomy in the second half of the 20th century.

 

[jwright82]

Yeah I like some things about it. I'm not convinced that it is the Reformed position but definitely a reformed position. But there is one problem i have with it and that is natural law. I like it as a concept and it is biblical but what is the method for building arguments from it? Dr Vandrunen's book on bioethics is good but I would like to see a how to on that.
It is freeing in that I don't need to vote for a particular party because it is the "Christian party". I vote for who I think the best candidate is. Luther's line about voting for a "just Turk instead of a tyrannical christian" is good. But all in all I like it. I didn't used but I came around.