Two Kingdoms (again)

[Jose Rodriguez]

Greetings to all,

So, like many others around the world, I've been scouring the web reading everything I can get my hands on with regards to the Two Kingdoms doctrine and controversy. Michael Horton, David VanDrunen, Nelson Kloosterman, Cornelis Venema, Michael Tuininga, John Frame, D. G. Hart, R. Scott Clark and a few others have laid out their arguments in their respective articles, books, blogs, and the like. What I seem to be finding is that all these men seem to be talking past each other, or, more likely, the different points of view are just getting jumbled around in my head.

I have a tenative grasp of the doctrine as laid out by Calvin, Turretin, Bavinck, and A Brakel. And I don't believe that any of the men I mentioned in the preceding paragraph really seem to disagree with the historical understanding of the doctrine.

What I would like from anyone that is interested is a brief summary (2 - 3 sentences) of what they believe the current debate is really all about. Debate is not what I want here. I'm really not looking for a defense of one position or the other. Nor do I really want to hear about how Frame did Escondido wrong or vice versa. That issue is really outside the scope of what I'm looking to see, which is a summary statement(s) of you believe to be the central issue of debate. I want to understand the major points of contention. I just can't seem to find that anywhere. Any websites, articles, and the like that you would deem helpful would be appreciated.

Of course, if what I'm asking for is impossible due to the complexity of the various arguments, feel free to let me know.

Thanks to all and God bless you in your various endeavors.

 

[Dearly Bought]

The current debate is all about a number of ostensibly Reformed theologians discussing the extent to which they would like to be consistent with their foundation of Voluntaryism in the civil realm, all the while ignoring the historic Establishmentarianism of the entire Reformed tradition prior to the late 18th century.

 

[One Little Nail]

The current debate is all about a number of ostensibly Reformed theologians discussing the extent to which they would like to be consistent with their foundation of Voluntaryism in the civil realm, all the while ignoring the historic Establishmentarianism of the entire Reformed tradition prior to the late 18th century.

OH I See, so basically it's the old american error invented at the foundation of their republic to make the doctrine of the reformed churches compatible with a secular constitution

 

[ZackF]

The current debate is all about a number of ostensibly Reformed theologians discussing the extent to which they would like to be consistent with their foundation of Voluntaryism in the civil realm, all the while ignoring the historic Establishmentarianism of the entire Reformed tradition prior to the late 18th century.

OH I See, so basically it's the old american error invented at the foundation of their republic to make the doctrine of the reformed churches compatible with a secular constitution

The OP said 2-3 sentences. You guys are only taking one. Come on now..

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

“Two kingdoms” propositions with some responses or counterpoints....

"Two kingdoms" propositions with some responses or counterpoints | RPCNA Covenanter

Hopefully Mark Van Der Molen will help us out here.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The OP said 2-3 sentences. You guys are only taking one. Come on now..

Is this better Zack? LOL

http://www.viewcrestchurch.org/ompodcast/om1002.mp3

Listening to the interview above with Dr. Jack Kinneer I walked away with this...

Here are very brief Stereo-Typical ways of understanding these issues according to the Host of the show that I linked to above.
The Non Two Kingdom View is a Tranformationalist and or a Theonomic view saying, “If we can just make the culture Christian everything will Change and Christ's Kingdom will come.”


The Two Kingdom view says that Culture Transformation is not the job of the Church. The Church receives the Kingdom. It doesn't create one. The job of the Church is to take the sacraments, hear the word preached, be fathers and mothers and plumbers and just go on with our life. If Jesus wants to do something through it and for us He can.


Those are the two extremes...
The Host then asks Dr. Kinneer if his definitions are correct.
Dr. Jack Kinneer of Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary replies,
“What you have is the American A view and the American B view.”
What you don't have is the Historical C view.

 

[mvdm]

“Two kingdoms” propositions with some responses or counterpoints....

"Two kingdoms" propositions with some responses or counterpoints | RPCNA Covenanter

Hopefully Mark Van Der Molen will help us out here.

Don't think I can improve on those summaries, but if someone has a specific question on particular propositions, I could flesh it out some more.

 

[ZackF]

The OP said 2-3 sentences. You guys are only taking one. Come on now..

Is this better Zack? LOL

http://www.viewcrestchurch.org/ompodcast/om1002.mp3

Listening to the interview above with Dr. Jack Kinneer I walked away with this...

Here are very brief Stereo-Typical ways of understanding these issues according to the Host of the show that I linked to above.
The Non Two Kingdom View is a Tranformationalist and or a Theonomic view saying, “If we can just make the culture Christian everything will Change and Christ's Kingdom will come.”


The Two Kingdom view says that Culture Transformation is not the job of the Church. The Church receives the Kingdom. It doesn't create one. The job of the Church is to take the sacraments, hear the word preached, be fathers and mothers and plumbers and just go on with our life. If Jesus wants to do something through it and for us He can.


Those are the two extremes...
The Host then asks Dr. Kinneer if his definitions are correct.
Dr. Jack Kinneer of Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary replies,
“What you have is the American A view and the American B view.”
What you don't have is the Historical C view.

That was longer than 2-3 sentences.

 

[MW]

OH I See, so basically it's the old american error invented at the foundation of their republic to make the doctrine of the reformed churches compatible with a secular constitution

In Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, Prof van Drunen sets forth something similar to the Whig interpretation of history, in which everything is moving towards "freedom," and he regularly critiques earlier reformed thought in the light of the American situation.

 

[One Little Nail]

OH I See, so basically it's the old american error invented at the foundation of their republic to make the doctrine of the reformed churches compatible with a secular constitution

In Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, Prof van Drunen sets forth something similar to the Whig interpretation of history, in which everything is moving towards "freedom," and he regularly critiques earlier reformed thought in the light of the American situation.

I'm not to familiar with Van Drunen's position, though upon reflection & minimal research isn't his book Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms a follow up of his other (2010) book, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, which deliberately advocates for a two kingdoms worldview, thus isn't this book Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms just his version or revision of history were he tries to scratch around for support for his two kingdom worldview.

for my part Luther's Doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers puts paid to this nonsense, we have vocational callings in this fallen world, which is both the Lord's, the earth is the Lord's & Satan's, the prince of this world ?, we as Christians are to view our whole life as the Lord's & submit our whole life to the Lordship of Christ.

alot of this also hinges on whether or not the First Table of the Law is binding on the Civil Magistrate, I affirm.

not having read the book i'll take your word for it that he sets forth something similar to the Whig interpretation of history, I find this ironic as the Scottish Covenanters were referred to as whigs & their catchcry was For Christs Crown & Covenant, no 2 kingdom theology there.

 

[MW]

Robert, You have put your finger on one of the problems connected with the definition of "Whig." Over time it has taken on meanings that it did not originally possess. It also shows that "freedom" means different things to different people, and so it is redundant to speak of history tending inevitably towards liberty.

Two kingdom theology is biblical and reformed. It was fundamental to the Scots first and second reformations, to the Secession movement, and to the Disruption of 1843. It safeguards the spiritual independence of the church. But it also maintained that there should be a connection between church and state, and that the state is subject to the whole moral law of God. In contrast, those who are called "radical" two kingdom advocates seek to adapt the two kingdom view to modern religious pluralism and they argue there is no place for an establishment of Christian religion within the civil domain. In rejecting this radical view there is no reason to throw away the sound biblical principles of two kingdom theology. Christ is made head over all things to the church. He is not made head over all things to all things. Two kingdoms is basic to biblical eschatology.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The current debate is all about a number of ostensibly Reformed theologians discussing the extent to which they would like to be consistent with their foundation of Voluntaryism in the civil realm, all the while ignoring the historic Establishmentarianism of the entire Reformed tradition prior to the late 18th century.

I agree with Bryan. The debate between the neo-2K advocates and their transformationalist, Kuyperian, or Reconstructionist critics is largely a family feud between different strands of Voluntaryism. The Theocratic Voluntaries are closer to confessional, two kingdom establishmentarians on some issues of statecraft, but their underlying Voluntaryism leads to significant areas of divergence. The neo-2Kers tend to be closer to the establishmentarians on matters pertaining to worship, the church, the Sabbath, and the central importance of the gospel. Hence, unbeknown to themselves, I think they are ultimately doing more to promote biblical theocracy than transformationalists who underplay the importance of the gospel, worship, the Sabbath, and the church in order to promote a certain notion of cultural transformation.

 

[Andres]

The best way to understand the Two Kingdoms debate is to familiarize oneself with the contrasting view, which is the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The neo-2Kers tend to be closer to the establishmentarians on matters pertaining to worship, the church, the Sabbath, and the central importance of the gospel. Hence, unbeknown to themselves, I think they are ultimately doing more to promote biblical theocracy than transformationalists who underplay the importance of the gospel, worship, the Sabbath, and the church in order to promote a certain notion of cultural transformation.

I think someone has you hoodwinked. There is much more to this than what you are suggesting. Not everyone who is labelled a transformationalist is liberal either. I could paint transformationalists as liberal Kingdom Comers who lose sight of a lot of things just as I could paint Presbyterians as liberal unconfessional pietistic leaning destroyers of the faith. After all the PCUSA (the largest Presbyterian denomination) has left the building.

From what I have seen most of the guys like D. G. Hart are libertarians and despise the establishmentarian heritage. They harshly oppose it. I have communicated enough with him and some of his friends enough to gain some insight into them. I know of one Pastor who was invited to go pray for a city Council meeting. He was sharply challenged about confusing the two Kingdoms. There are extremes on both sides of the issue. It is more complex than some want to acknowledge. When issues of morality are brought up in the civil realm and society some Pastors are washing their hands concerning what their congregants are advocating. Some of those topics are utterly abominable. The connection between the sanctuary and what lays outside of the Church doors have very little connection and accountability in the mind of some of our Pastors and congregants.

 

[mvdm]

largely a family feud between different strands of Voluntaryism.

Disagree. If one reads through the propositions linked above, you can detect we are dealing with competing world views. These differing views affect ecclesiology, Christology, scriptural perspicuity/ necessity/ authority, and the nature of the Kingdom of God.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I think someone has you hoodwinked. There is much more to this than what you are suggesting. Not everyone who is labelled a transformationalist is liberal either.

I never said that they were all liberals. I am just trying to be even handed; the neo-2Kers tend to be better on issues concerning the regulative principle and the Sabbath than many of the transformationalists are. That is all that I was pointing out.

From what I have seen most of the guys like D. G. Hart are libertarians and despise the establishmentarian heritage. They harshly oppose it. I have communicated enough with him and some of his friends enough to gain some insight into them.

That point is largely correct; I find it somewhat ironic that both the Reconstructionists and the neo-2Kers are largely agreed with respect to libertarianism. Again, though, this view is an outgrowth of their underlying Voluntaryism. I challenged D. G. Hart to his face on some of the issues relating to his distortion of real 2K theology at a recent round-table discussion. One point I challenged him on was that the neo-2Kers agnosticism with respect to whether the state should recognise homosexual marriage was contrary to the Westminster Confession's teaching on unlawful marriages never being made lawful by any law of man and to the Larger Catechism's teaching on the ten commandments. [1]

[1] If I recall correctly, Dr R. Scott Clark opposes the legal recognition of homosexual on the basis of the law of nature. So, not all variants of neo-2K advocate legalising homosexual marriage. However, the law of nature is fatal to any form of neo-2K, as the law of nature refers to both tables of the law - not simply to the second.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

largely a family feud between different strands of Voluntaryism.

Disagree. If one reads through the propositions linked above, you can detect we are dealing with competing world views. These differing views affect ecclesiology, Christology, scriptural perspicuity/ necessity/ authority, and the nature of the Kingdom of God.

Whatever their differences, it is still a debate between Voluntaries. One strand are theocratic Voluntaries; the other strand are pluralist Voluntaries. I do not deny that this is a significant area of divergence, but it is still a dispute among Voluntaries.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Hence, unbeknown to themselves, I think they are ultimately doing more to promote biblical theocracy than transformationalists who underplay the importance of the gospel, worship, the Sabbath, and the church in order to promote a certain notion of cultural transformation.

Let us pose this question slightly differently - Who is doing more to promote the kingdom of God? Michael Horton, who vigorously opposes the FV, or, Reconstructionist groups who do not?

 

[RamistThomist]

Hence, unbeknown to themselves, I think they are ultimately doing more to promote biblical theocracy than transformationalists who underplay the importance of the gospel, worship, the Sabbath, and the church in order to promote a certain notion of cultural transformation.

Let us pose this question slightly differently - Who is doing more to promote the kingdom of God: Michael Horton, who vigorously opposes the FV, or, Reconstructionist groups who do not?

Bingo. And that is what made me more sympathetic to Horton contra the various strands of Kuyperianism.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

The pithiness of the comments in this discussion is very helpful; still, the apparent complexity of this discussion still daunts me.

Daniel, you have rightly pointed out a prime issue: "whether the state should recognise homosexual marriage". But what happens when the state has recognized it, a fait accompli? At that point is not all we can do – even while testifying to the eternal standard of God's law violated – to say, "You may have framed this unjust law in opposition to the King of Heaven and earth, but within the precincts of His Kingdom rule in the church your law is null and void, utterly unrecognized, and we shall proceed so"?

The field of the world may be taken by the god of this world, but the kingdom not of this world, and its manifestation here, can never be taken, not even over our dead bodies.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Let us pose this question slightly differently - Who is doing more to promote the kingdom of God? Michael Horton, who vigorously opposes the FV, or, Reconstructionist groups who do not?

To me this is like trying to make everyone who opposes the Klinean construction of his later hermeneutic look like Norman Shepherd. Most of the Recons and Theocrats I am familiar with oppose FV. It is repugnant to them as it denies solid soteriology. I have been accused of mono-covenantalism because I do not hold to a Lutheran hermeneutic of Law / Gospel. I hold to a Reformed Confessional view. I can not speak for all and do realize that there are Recons and Theocrats who fell for FV just as there were those outside of that pale who did also. This argument is a straw man in my estimation. If we would hang with the Standards we wouldn't have this problem in my estimation.

Here is a problem that I have noticed in this debate. Terminology is being used in an incorrect way to divert attention away from the real issues. Here is one example. The Charge of Lutheranism is not about distinction, it is about dichotomy | RPCNA Covenanter

BTW, I think most solid Lutherans who read Luther would find R2K outside of their thought.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I can not speak for all and do realize that there are Recons and Theocrats who fell for FV just as there were those outside of that pale who did also. This argument is a straw man in my estimation.

I think you are reading too much into my point. One of my best friends, who runs a popular theonomic website, is one of the most outspoken FV-critics. But he has made the same point that I have about Michael Horton et al doing more to advance the kingdom than doctrinal weak Recons - in fact it was he who first brought the issue to my attention.

If we would hang with the Standards we wouldn't have this problem in my estimation.

I agree. Both doctrinally weak transformationalist views and neo-2K demonstrate the mess we get ourselves in when we depart from the original Westminster Standards.

BTW, I think most solid Lutherans who read Luther would find R2K outside of their thought.

I agree. Even the Lutherans believed that the state should uphold both tables of the law.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Daniel, you have rightly pointed out a prime issue: "whether the state should recognise homosexual marriage". But what happens when the state has recognized it, a fait accompli? At that point is not all we can do – even while testifying to the eternal standard of God's law violated – to say, "You may have framed this unjust law in opposition to the King of Heaven and earth, but within the precincts of His Kingdom rule in the church your law is null and void, utterly unrecognized, and we shall proceed so"?

At this point in time, it probably is all that we can realistically do.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I think you are reading too much into my point. One of my best friends, who runs a popular theonomic website, is one of the most outspoken FV-critics. But he has made the same point that I have about Michael Horton et al doing more to advance the kingdom than doctrinal weak Recons - in fact it was he who first brought the issue to my attention.

This may be true. But I wouldn't even make the comparison as standardly as I have understood you. It was a blanket statement that needed correction in my estimation. As far as I am concerned the dispensationalist Calvinistic does a much better job than a liberal theologian also. I would pit any of my Sovereign Grace brothers against the liberal mindset. But this issue has to do with what is going on in the Reformed Camp. I understand that. Some of my RB brothers are better suited to address the Two Kingdom issue than some of these guys in my estimation. Does that make sense?

I have to depart to attend my Step Grandfather's funeral so I won't be able to address this till later. I hit this on the fly. TTYL.

 

[earl40]

The pithiness of the comments in this discussion is very helpful; still, the apparent complexity of this discussion still daunts me.

Daniel, you have rightly pointed out a prime issue: "whether the state should recognise homosexual marriage". But what happens when the state has recognized it, a fait accompli? At that point is not all we can do – even while testifying to the eternal standard of God's law violated – to say, "You may have framed this unjust law in opposition to the King of Heaven and earth, but within the precincts of His Kingdom rule in the church your law is null and void, utterly unrecognized, and we shall proceed so"?

The field of the world may be taken by the god of this world, but the kingdom not of this world, and its manifestation here, can never be taken, not even over our dead bodies.

Yes it is a complex issue though in my small mind I shall follow what we should do to be loving to any person who practices evil practices, I will vote as a citizen in a Godly manner and if my vote looses I shall feed the unjust person if they are hungry, and not endorse evil practice by selling them a cake to celebrate such practices. Is there any here that would oppose such?

 

[mvdm]

largely a family feud between different strands of Voluntaryism.

Disagree. If one reads through the propositions linked above, you can detect we are dealing with competing world views. These differing views affect ecclesiology, Christology, scriptural perspicuity/ necessity/ authority, and the nature of the Kingdom of God.

Whatever their differences, it is still a debate between Voluntaries. One strand are theocratic Voluntaries; the other strand are pluralist Voluntaries. I do not deny that this is a significant area of divergence, but it is still a dispute among Voluntaries.

Yes, it is a dispute among voluntaries. But you said was "..largely a family feud between different strands of voluntaryism". You would need to define "largely" and "family". I don't see this as the prime loci of the dispute. One sees debates between "voluntaries" between all sorts of non-Reformed folks who do not subscribe to the original or revised Reformed standards.

 

[mvdm]

Who is doing more to promote the kingdom of God? Michael Horton, who vigorously opposes the FV, or, Reconstructionist groups who do not?

This is fallacious reasoning. One can oppose the FV and at the same time fall into an opposite error that is even more detrimental to the Reformed understanding of the advance of the Kingdom.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This is fallacious reasoning. One can oppose the FV and at the same time fall into an opposite error that is even more detrimental to the Reformed understanding of the advance of the Kingdom.

Michael Horton preaches the gospel (albeit imperfectly); the FVers do not. Ergo, Michael Horton is doing more to advance the kingdom of God than the FVers, as they are advancing the kingdom of Satan.

The Reconstructionists who are soft on the FV but hard on the neo-2Kers are actually falling into a form of RR2K theology (Reverse Radical Two Kingdom theology). We often hear the dualist charge against neo-2Kers, namely, that they are not interested in Christian statecraft and so on, but only interested in soteriology, the church, worship, and the Sabbath, etc. Charges of dualism cut both ways, however. I see little point in focusing on Christian politics, while ignoring the importance of soteriology, worship, the church, the sacraments, and so on. How is this latitudinarian Reconstructionism any less dualist than neo-2K? Do not misunderstand me, though; I do not believe there is any place for neo-2K at the Reformed table, as neo-2K is not Reformed. That said, I do recognise that various neo-2Kers are more confessional on other areas of theology than some of their critics.

General point (not addressed to anyone in particular): Perhaps if there was a bit more humility and a bit less party spirit on all sides of the debate over the Two Kingdoms, then we might actually get somewhere in terms of moving the debate forward. One of the first things that would help to move the debate forward is recognition that 2K is the Reformed position, and that both Kuyperian or Reconstructionist Voluntaryism and neo-2K are modern innovations.

 

[mvdm]

Michael Horton preaches the gospel (albeit imperfectly); the FVers do not. Ergo, Michael Horton is doing more to advance the kingdom of God than the FVers, as they are advancing the kingdom of Satan.

Repeating a non-sequiter does not make it more convincing the second time. However your statement that neo-2k does not belong at the Reformed table gets closer to advancing the discussion.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Repeating a non-sequiter does not make it more convincing the second time.

Mark, you and I are equally opposed to neo-2K, but I do not feel the need to dismiss everything the neo-2Kers say or do just because I disagree with them on the issue of Christian magistracy (okay, and other things as well). In response to your point, I could reply that wrongly accusing something of being a non-sequitor does not make it more convincing the second time. It is quite obvious that someone who preaches the gospel is doing more to advance the kingdom of God than one who is not. Are Michael Horton and others doing as much to advance the kingdom as they could be doing? Probably not, but they are certainly doing more than those who are promoting the kingdom of darkness (e.g., the FVers and their fellow-travellers).

But, nonetheless, please keep up the good work against neo-2K.