Two Kingdoms (again)

[PuritanCovenanter]

Michael Horton preaches the gospel (albeit imperfectly); the FVers do not.

We can discuss what is being said here. Some would even advance that the FVers preach the Gospel (albeit imperfectly). Both groups adhere to the gospel as defined in the narrow sense and as lined out in 1Corinthians 15:1-8.

1Co 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,

(1Co 15:2) and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.


(1Co 15:3) For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,


(1Co 15:4) that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,


(1Co 15:5) and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.


(1Co 15:6) Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.


(1Co 15:7) Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.


(1Co 15:8) Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

One group says that the Gospel commands and promises and the other denies that there is command (that is the job of the Law). Both do it on a level that seems harmful to me. There is Gospel obedience and Gospel repentance. Depending on what strain of FV you are speaking about justification by faith alone is not an issue. I know a lot of FV guys who believe that. Even if they have problems with imputation. A lot of others have fallen into the New Paul Perspective. The FV movement was not as monolithic as you are painting them. A lot of the FV issues had to do with sacramentology and how they viewed Covenant Theology. Some of it had to do with imputation. So the Federal Vision issue was quite complex. When one says that the Gospel doesn't command anything and that it is just a victory message we ought to have just as much concern with that as we do with problems concerning Federal Vision doctrines of Imputation, Sacramentology, and Covenant Theology which has been reduced to mono-covenantalism. When they want to declare that "Gospel obedience" or the "Law turned into Gospel" is "serious error" we ought to be concerned. Do I need to remind others that this has happened on this discussion forum by others in the past? The reaction of the swinging pendulum has gone past where it should in both instances. That needs to be recognized.

 

[mvdm]

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).

I am not dismissing everything they say. I'm trying to make clear that those "other things" do not really answer the question of the point of this thread. Furthermore, the neo-2k movement is not limited to a view of the magistracy, but impacts a broader range of theological loci, as I mentioned above, including how one defines the "gospel".

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Depending on what strain of FV you are speaking about justification by faith alone is not an issue. I know a lot of FV guys who believe that. Even if they have problems with imputation. A lot of others have fallen into the New Paul Perspective. The FV movement was not as monolithic as you are painting them.

Do you take their claims at face-value? I do not deny that some of the FVers are more slippery than others, but I do not think that any of them are to be trusted.

The reaction of the swinging pendulum has gone past where it should in both instances. That needs to be recognized.

Both the FV and neo-2K are at odds with Reformed orthodoxy, but let us keep in mind that men such as R. Scott Clark and Michael Horton were quick to defend justification by faith alone when many Recons and transformationalists were happy to either embrace or wink at the FV movement.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

Getting back to the main point of the thread: The men you have mentioned who are advocates of neo-2K - Michael Horton, R. Scott Clark, David VanDrunen, Matthew Tuininga, D. G. Hart et al, expressly reject the real two kingdom theology as set forth in the writings of Calvin, Turretin, and the Westminster divines. Does this mean that they are not good brothers who do a lot of commendable things? No, far from it. Does this mean that they are not more Reformed in some areas than many of their critics? No, there are many areas where they are much more confessional than some of their critics.

If you think, however, that neo-2K is the "real Reformed position" (as I heard someone assert at the recent round table discussion I attended), ask yourself the following questions:

1. Is it consistent with Reformed orthodoxy to deny that the magistrate is to uphold the first table of the law?
2. Is it consistent with Reformed orthodoxy to deny that there should be an established church?
3. Is it consistent with Reformed orthodoxy to deny that the civil ruler is bound to suppress idolatry, blasphemy, heresy, and schism?
4. Is it consistent with Reformed orthodoxy to deny that national funds should be used for the promotion of Christianity?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Getting back to the main point of the thread: The men you have mentioned who are advocates of neo-2K - Michael Horton, R. Scott Clark, David VanDrunen, Matthew Tuininga, D. G. Hart et al, expressly reject the real two kingdom theology as set forth in the writings of Calvin, Turretin, and the Westminster divines. Does this mean that they are not good brothers who do a lot of commendable things? No, far from it. Does this mean that they are not more Reformed in some areas than many of their critics? No, there are many areas where they are much more confessional than some of their critics.

Well said Daniel.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Very incisive thoughts, Daniel – helpful to compare the various views.

 

[ReverendJim]

I'm curious if anyone knows to what degree R2K is being talked about outside the American scene? Anyone know?

 

[Jose Rodriguez]

Daniel,

Thanks for the questions. That will give me some things to think about.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Do you take their claims at face-value? I do not deny that some of the FVers are more slippery than others, but I do not think that any of them are to be trusted.

Daniel, You still have not substantiated anything. You are only saying you don't trust them and none of them should be trusted. Fine, so be it. We know where you draw the line. I have also learned not to take the other side of the pendulum swing at face value as I believe you have learned you shouldn't also. If you want to measure poisons then that is fine. I have demonstrated specific doctrines where things are going array. In my book poison is still poison. One might just kill a bit slower than the other. And when they wanted to accuse others of "Serious Error" who were advocating the Reformed position then I learned a lot about them also. ie. Horton and Clark.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I heard some one explain that the difference between the original Confession and the American revisions as simply a different view of the Church in the world. The old establishment understanding thought of the Church like Israel living in the promise land. The American version thinks of the Church like Israel living in exile or the wilderness. I've been mulling it over ever since I heard it but I'm not sure it works. Does that sound like an accurate summary of the differences?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Daniel, You still have not substantiated anything. You are only saying you don't trust them and none of them should be trusted. Fine, so be it. We know where you draw the line.

Randy, since the FV has been in the public domain since at least 2002, and has been condemned by various Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, there is not much more that needs to be said on the issue. I do not doubt that there are some straying sheep among the FVers, but, as has been documented on various occasions, many of their leading proponents hold heterodox views of justification. I will cite the comment in the PB rules which I believe helpfully summarises the issues at stake in that debate:

3. Federal Vision. The Puritan Board forbids the membership of "Federal Vision" proponents on this board. Every major NAPARC body has ruled the Federal Vision to be an un-Scriptural and un-Confessional doctrinal error that fundamentally re-casts doct[r]ines that are core to the Christian religion. [1]

As I understand it, the FVers have made concessions Romish views of soteriology while neo-2Kers have made concessions to Lutheran views of soteriology. While neither of these is right, I think it is fair to say that the early Reformed were more opposed to Rome than Wittenburg.


[1] There is a typo in the PB rules, as doctrines is misspelled as "doctines".

 

[Dearly Bought]

I heard some one explain that the difference between the original Confession and the American revisions as simply a different view of the Church in the world. The old establishment understanding thought of the Church like Israel living in the promise land. The American version thinks of the Church like Israel living in exile or the wilderness. I've been mulling it over ever since I heard it but I'm not sure it works. Does that sound like an accurate summary of the differences?

Not from my perspective. The establishmentarians very much used the language of pilgrims that "desire a better country, that is, an heavenly" (Hebrews 11:16).

 

[Peairtach]

I heard some one explain that the difference between the original Confession and the American revisions as simply a different view of the Church in the world. The old establishment understanding thought of the Church like Israel living in the promise land. The American version thinks of the Church like Israel living in exile or the wilderness. I've been mulling it over ever since I heard it but I'm not sure it works. Does that sound like an accurate summary of the differences?

Sounds extremely simplistic. People like Samuel Rutherfored were very much aware, and expressed, that they were on a journey through the wilderness.

There are senses in which in the "already.......not yet" of NT eschatology, we do inherit the earth in the here and now. See e.g. Calvin's comment on Romans 4:13. But the true and full inheritance of the earth by the saints in Christ awaits the Eschaton.

The establishment principle isn't saying that any nation has arrived, and has "no more work to do" in progressing as a Christian nation and preserving its attainments. It is just recognising the fact that Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and that kings must kiss the Son.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

That's helpful to me, Patrick. Bryan, even in the land of promise Israel looked for "a better country, that is, an heavenly" – as per their patriarch, Abraham.

What is perplexing about this topic to me is that there are so many different views, both re 2K and "orthodox"!

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't doubt that some theonomists (Morecraft et al) attacked Federal Vision, but where are the articles condemning it from the two leading theonomic think-tanks: Chalcedon.edu and American Vision? In fact, Gary Demar's people openly promote Jim Jordan's commentaries.

When I read and listen to theonomists today, I see a lot of why sodomites are evil (no argument here) and why we should hate Big Gubmnt (again, no argument), but when I read and listen to Horton, I hear that salvation is extra nos pro me.

 

[RamistThomist]

That's helpful to me, Patrick. Bryan, even in the land of promise Israel looked for "a better country, that is, an heavenly" – as per their patriarch, Abraham.

What is perplexing about this topic to me is that there are so many different views, both re 2K and "orthodox"!

And the main problem comes with Horton's "common grace ethic" that rules the natural civil order. The problem is defining what exactly that is beyond a facile appeal to the status quo. This is the only place I disagree with Horton. I actually side with him over the recons (their rhetoric to Horton is inexcusable) but his social ethic won't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I will cite the comment in the PB rules which I believe helpfully summarises the issues at stake in that debate:

You are not listening to me Daniel. I am not defending FV. I abhor it. You don't need to remind me of the rules and the conclusions that NAPARC and other Denominations such as my own have laid down. I am stating facts about various FV proponents and those who have swung to far the other way. In fact when the "Serious Error" accusation was thrown at us I would say it might have gone beyond Lutheranism. You still have not addressed my last post. Their view of the Gospel is different than the Reformed view that the Law is turned into Gospel for the Elect.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

You are not listening to me Daniel. I am not defending FV. I abhor it.

Randy, for some reason we seem to be talking past each other. My point in citing the PB rules was simply to demonstrate that we all agree that FV is out of step with basic Christianity. I am not accusing you of liking the FV, all I am saying is that the errors of the neo-2Kers are not as extreme as those of the FVers. From my point of view, the neo-2Kers are erring brethren; the FVers, by way of contrast, are dangerous wolves.

You still have not addressed my last post. Their view of the Gospel is different than the Reformed view that the Law is turned into Gospel for the Elect.

Obviously, I do not agree with them, nor am I condoning the rhetoric they seem to have employed against you, but do you think that their error is on a par with the FV?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I heard some one explain that the difference between the original Confession and the American revisions as simply a different view of the Church in the world. The old establishment understanding thought of the Church like Israel living in the promise land. The American version thinks of the Church like Israel living in exile or the wilderness. I've been mulling it over ever since I heard it but I'm not sure it works. Does that sound like an accurate summary of the differences?

Sounds extremely simplistic. People like Samuel Rutherfored were very much aware, and expressed, that they were on a journey through the wilderness.

There are senses in which in the "already.......not yet" of NT eschatology, we do inherit the earth in the here and now. See e.g. Calvin's comment on Romans 4:13. But the true and full inheritance of the earth by the saints in Christ awaits the Eschaton.

The establishment principle isn't saying that any nation has arrived, and has "no more work to do" in progressing as a Christian nation and preserving its attainments. It is just recognising the fact that Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and that kings must kiss the Son.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

I don't think anyone on either side felt any had "arrived", but it merely reflected the mindset. The old establishment principle looked at a national kingdom as God's kingdom which the church must reform (like Josiah perhaps) while the American version viewed the Church as wandering through exile in Babylon, working for the good of the city (like Daniel perhaps) but not seeking an established home. Perhaps it is too simplistic of the two perspectives. I like to think in pictures and this seems to picture each view, but I'd like a little more feedback from those who have studied it more than I.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Obviously, I do not agree with them, nor am I condoning the rhetoric they seem to have employed against you, but do you think that their error is on a par with the FV?

Nope, I don't. I figure that they might as well be independent fundamentalists when it comes to justification by faith alone sometimes. They need to acknowledge that their view is not the only view and quit maligning the Reformed positions as they do and as I have suggested. The FV did the same thing. They maligned the Reformed positions. So it looks like the pot is calling the kettle black in my estimation. They are both guilty of maligning the Reformed positions. Now if you want to talk degree that is one thing. It is still yet to be discovered the backlash and harm it is doing and going to do. When we have posts like this from R2Kers I don't want to think about it. It is far from the positions that I believe even Machen would endorse as I would view him as semi-Libertarian.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Nope, I don't. I figure that they might as well be independent fundamentalists when it comes to justification by faith alone sometimes. They need to acknowledge that their view is not the only view and quit maligning the Reformed positions as they do and as I have suggested. The FV did the same thing. They maligned the Reformed positions. So it looks like the pot is calling the kettle black in my estimation. They are both guilty of maligning the Reformed positions.

I think we can both agree on that. Thanks.

It is still yet to be discovered the backlash and harm it is doing and going to do. When we have posts like this from R2Kers I don't want to think about it. It is far from the positions that I believe even Machen would endorse as I would view him as semi-Libertarian.

Such views as espoused in the post you linked to (e.g. that homosexuality is not a crime) cannot be reconciled with any Reformed confession. Indeed, did anyone in the Reformed world believe this prior to Lee Irons? I was talking to Carl Trueman today about these sort of views, and he told me that he has had to point out certain extreme neo-2Kers that even some of the better neo-2K people do not go this far.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I was talking to Carl Trueman today about these sort of views, and he told me that he has had to point out certain extreme neo-2Kers that even some of the better neo-2K people do not go this far.

That is certainly true but the slope is slippery in my opinion as you may note.

I take the second view, but I recognize the former as wrestling as much as I’m trying to with the neighbor-love question. Legal benefits (“partnerships”) at least allowed a distinction between a contractual relationship and the covenant of marriage. However, the only improvement that “marriage” brings is social approval-treating homosexaul and heterosexual unions as equal. Although a contractual relationship denies God’s will for human dignity, I could affirm domestic partnerships as a way of protecting people’s legal and economic security. However, the “marriage card” is the demand for something that simply cannot consist in a same-sex relationship. Human love is defined not by a feeling, shared history, or animal attraction, but by something objective, something that measures us—namely, God’s moral law. To affirm this while concluding that it’s good for Christians but not for the rest of us seems to me to conclude that this law is not natural and universal, rooted in creation, and/or that we only love our Christian neighbors. - See more at: Should We Oppose Same-Sex Marriage? - White Horse Inn Blog​

The endorsement of domestic partnerships is strange in my opinion. I am not sure that is necessary. I do understand that I should have anyone at my bedside in a hospital (or where ever) that I want there and the State shouldn't make that decision nor should a hospital in my estimation. I base that upon true friendship and not on anything perverse. But to be honest I don't know all the ins and outs of those situations as I have not had to deal with them. I have only heard stories. I would also include shared properties in that. But perversity doesn't need to be included in that situation either. Properties and rights can be protected without endorsing anything perverse in my estimation.

 

[Peairtach]

I heard some one explain that the difference between the original Confession and the American revisions as simply a different view of the Church in the world. The old establishment understanding thought of the Church like Israel living in the promise land. The American version thinks of the Church like Israel living in exile or the wilderness. I've been mulling it over ever since I heard it but I'm not sure it works. Does that sound like an accurate summary of the differences?

Sounds extremely simplistic. People like Samuel Rutherfored were very much aware, and expressed, that they were on a journey through the wilderness.

There are senses in which in the "already.......not yet" of NT eschatology, we do inherit the earth in the here and now. See e.g. Calvin's comment on Romans 4:13. But the true and full inheritance of the earth by the saints in Christ awaits the Eschaton.

The establishment principle isn't saying that any nation has arrived, and has "no more work to do" in progressing as a Christian nation and preserving its attainments. It is just recognising the fact that Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and that kings must kiss the Son.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

I don't think anyone on either side felt any had "arrived", but it merely reflected the mindset. The old establishment principle looked at a national kingdom as God's kingdom which the church must reform (like Josiah perhaps) while the American version viewed the Church as wandering through exile in Babylon, working for the good of the city (like Daniel perhaps) but not seeking an established home. Perhaps it is too simplistic of the two perspectives. I like to think in pictures and this seems to picture each view, but I'd like a little more feedback from those who have studied it more than I.

Well, I suppose it depends on what point in history you are and what is possible politically. Unless (biblical) Christianity is in the ascendent you're not going to get a Christianised state and nation. If you live in one of those times when Christianity is in the ascendant, give thanks, and make the godly changes you can to commonwealth and laws to tame the Beast (unsanctified civil government and society).

If you live at a time when (biblical) Christianity is stagnant or in reversal in your nation, then thank God for the blessings you do have, and make the most of it, like e.g. Daniel in Babylon.

But the ideal of a Christianised society and state, or even a more Christianised society and state is set before us. It will never be perfectly realised before the Eschaton, but our own progress in sanctification is never perfectly realised in this life, either. That doesn't mean that we don't seek, by God's grace, to move, incrementally at least, in the right direction.

 

[mvdm]

I was talking to Carl Trueman today about these sort of views, and he told me that he has had to point out certain extreme neo-2Kers that even some of the better neo-2K people do not go this far.

And how does a neo-2k fellow like Carl Trueman define "extreme" neo-2k? Has he ever publicly critiqued such radical formulations?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I need a chart of 2K views. I understand A. Establishment (does this bifurcate also?). I get fuzzy on on the wrong views smug: B. Voluntaryism. How does that bifurcate? 1.Neo-2K (radical/nonradical?). 2.transformationalist (a,b,c)? Is there general agreement on all the terms? How does one avoid the definition of radical as "left of me"?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

And how does a neo-2k fellow like Carl Trueman define "extreme" neo-2k? Has he ever publicly critiqued such radical formulations?

I recall Backwoods Presbyterian directing me to a podcast in which Dr Trueman condemned the "Radical Two Kingdom guys" who thought that you could not use the Bible to preach against abortion. He told me that men such as David Van Drunen did not go as far as D. G. Hart, and would argue that you could preach an anti-abortion sermon if it was in the text. It may have been one of the Reformed Forum podcasts, but I am not sure.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I think this was the specific pod-cast that Benjamin pointed me to: http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/rmr38/

 

[RamistThomist]

I was talking to Carl Trueman today about these sort of views, and he told me that he has had to point out certain extreme neo-2Kers that even some of the better neo-2K people do not go this far.

And how does a neo-2k fellow like Carl Trueman define "extreme" neo-2k? Has he ever publicly critiqued such radical formulations?

When Jason Stellman "poped" Trueman went online criticizing some's excessive interest in all things 2K. At this point I hold to a firm 2K, but am somewhere to the right of Horton et al.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

When Jason Stellman "poped" Trueman went online criticizing some's excessive interest in all things 2K. At this point I hold to a firm 2K, but am somewhere to the right of Horton et al.

Thoughts on an Impending Conversion (Which Should Have Been Foretold) - Reformation21 Blog

 

[KMK]

When Jason Stellman "poped" Trueman went online criticizing some's excessive interest in all things 2K. At this point I hold to a firm 2K, but am somewhere to the right of Horton et al.

Thoughts on an Impending Conversion (Which Should Have Been Foretold) - Reformation21 Blog

From the blog:

Having said this, however, there is a breed of Christian out there for whom the doctrine of the church and 2K are all they ever seem to talk about. They are, it appears, the number one priorities for Christians. Such advocates often seem, at least on the surface, to disdain the basic elements of Christian discipleship - fellowship, loving one's neighbor, protecting and honoring the poor and weak - and spend a disproportionate amount of time talking about their pet ecclesiological and 2K projects.

As Mr. Helbert said in a recent thread, "We need fewer professional theologians, ideologues, and nit pickers, who strain at gnats, and more pastors, teachers, deacons, and missionaries who are willing to get into the trenches and do the grunt work of coming along side people who have everyday needs."