Two Kingdoms vs Liberty

Status
Not open for further replies.

arapahoepark

Puritan Board Professor
Seeing quite a bit of debate between many issues, sometimes here and sometimes elsewhere, I am wondering if Two Kingdoms theology is the way to go or if a lot just falls under Christian liberty.
I am quite tired of seeing one's views (from homeschooling to welfare or very specified gender roles) promoted as the definitive Christian way. It seems uncomfortable, even if I might personally believe, such notions are stupid (aside from blatantly obvious examples like Abortions gays, etc.) I admit, I am not to well read in this area. Any good sources on the idea?
 
OK.
Ignoring the apathy with regards to "specified gender roles", may you please enlighten me as to what Two Kingdoms theology is?
 
Two kingdoms has a few different flavors. I’ll make an attempt to summarize the foundational points. Please, anyone correct me if I am in error.

Essentially; Two Kingdom theology states that Jesus rules exhaustively over both the world and the church (the two kingdoms) but rules each for different purposes. Christ’s rule in the Church is mediated by word and sacrament and the purpose of his rule is to extend the church through individual conversions and ultimately present a redeemed humanity to the father at the end of the age.
Christ rules in the rest of the unreformed world through his divine power through providence. All his actions in the unredeemed world are subordinate to his purpose to redeem his people and preserve them in faith until the final judgment.

The different flavors of 2K theology have to do with the extent to which the church / individual Christians should also participate in Christ’s rule over the world. There are polarizing views at this point, and you have encountered some of these it seems.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Worth a read as it outlines the Two Kingdom distinctions taken by its proponents:
 

Attachments

  • Not Ashamed -Themelios.pdf
    487.1 KB · Views: 16
Worth a read as it outlines the Two Kingdom distinctions taken by its proponents:

It should be noted that this deals specifically with modern, radical castings of two kingdoms (and, on the other side, neo-Kuyperian) positions. Thankfully, we don't have to choose between Van Drunen and Frame/Leithart.

Kaleb's apt synopsis of 2K theology would include Geneva and Westminster and would certainly leave room for the Bible in the public square and even establishmentarianism. For instance, here is a statement of the Seceders on the occasion of renewing the Solemn League and Covenant:

True religion is not only the church's blessing, but her very substance; so that true religion and a true church cannot be divided. Now, if true religion became a part of the civil constitution,it inevitably follows, that the church became a part of the state: Which doctrine, as it is absurd in itself, so it lays a plain foundation for Erastianism; overturning the distinction betwixt the kingdom of our Lord Jesus, and the kingdoms of this world. Moreover, if the true religion (which is spiritual and supernatural) became a part of the civil constitution; then it could no longer remain a civil, but became a religious, a spiritual, a supernatural constitution.

Clearly there is Two Kingdoms theology there, and yet it did not prevent them from stating a little later:

As it was once a peculiar duty of the Jewish nation, so it is peculiarly incumbent upon every civil state whereinto Christianity is introduced, to study and bring to pass, that civil government among them, in all the appertenances of its constitution and administration, run in an agreeableness to the word of God; be subservient unto the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ, and to the interests of the true religion and reformation of the Church: As otherwise they cannot truly prosper in their civil concerns, nor be enriched by the blessings of the gospel

This is historical, orthodox Reformed 2K theology.
 
...two kingdoms...neo-Kuyperian...Van Drunen ...Frame/Leithart ...Kaleb ...Geneva...Westminster...establishmentarianism...Seceders...Solemn League and Covenant...

My head hurts a bit now...
 
...two kingdoms...neo-Kuyperian...Van Drunen ...Frame/Leithart ...Kaleb ...Geneva...Westminster...establishmentarianism...Seceders...Solemn League and Covenant...

My head hurts a bit now...

So take a look at this link to get a fair description of what modern Two Kingdoms is. It isn't really a major framework (like Covenant Theology) nor is it just mild principles to live by, but somewhere in between. It is an understanding of God's relationship to his people, both in their secular and religious lives, and how he can still be King and ruler over those institutions that deny him or are not inclined to him. Lastly, it is deeply focused on the world to come, and not simply on this world.

All the rest of the words we're using are just people's names that imply what they taught, but don't get lost on what they mean. For someone who isn't interested in knowing everything about everything, all that's important is that 1. It's an old teaching. 2. Some people think it's too Lutheran 3. The primary alternative to it is called Neo-Kuyperianism (after the Dutch theologian Abraham Kuyper). To know how it all fits, here's a quick summary on the gospel coalition.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/two-kingdom-theology-and-neo-kuyperians/

If you're more interested in stuff like this, feel free to dm me for more stuff. Hope this helps!
 
I think there are two major pitfalls that can easily be fallen into if you go into either a more radical 2K view or into a more neo-calvinist/Kuyperian.

In the radical 2K, there is such a sharp divide between the sacred and secular. It seems to make things easy to compartmentalize--there's where/how I do my church stuff (all that faith, belief, practice), and over there's where/how I do my civic stuff (all my business, civic duties, etc). The problem is that there isn't always a clear divide. Many seemingly innocuous economic or business practices, for instance, could have moral aspects to them. How do we reconcile the moral aspects? Well, we look to our worldview, our faith as a basis for how we address these things. In dividing so harshly the "kingdoms" you run the risk of either being inconsistent (your civic witness seems to show little coincidence with your professed faith practice), or you're more in a no-man's-land, or even wishy-washy state of non-involvement.

Alternatively, you can swing the other way into more neo-calvinist/Kuyperian extreme which is more a blurring of the sacred and secular - It could be boiled down to "If everything's sacred, then nothing is." This is where you get the caricatures of Christian media moguls redeeming outright-sinful (or in the least highly questionable on the conscience of a Christian) movies, or some of the attempts to "Christianize" people, places, things--you name it. I think this also under-girds more subtly some of the more broader evangelical tropes of making a 'Christian' item--if you slap a verse, a cross, or a fish on it...that being the baby-step version to really 'reforming' the whole system. I think this is a popular thing to grapple onto for younger generations who are all about changing the world, and the way to harness that 'youthfulness' for the church at large is seeming to be relevant to society....but instead of calling it 'trying to be relevant' (especially in Reformed circles, because we're not like those other evangelicals) we mask it in hyper-Kuyperianism and call it "redeeming."

I like to think that a balanced view falls somewhere in the middle of the two, recognizing that God's redemptive work is powerful enough to encapsulate the whole world--even caring for the lilies and the sparrows (so should we not also care for those things?)! That should move us to work his redeeming love in our lives--through "secular" and civic duties, even. However, there are specific, sacred acts that Christ has called us to be a part of--he is a holy God, after all, and so we shouldn't forget that holiness requires a 'setting apart'.

So, I guess, my response is: Yes, the kingdoms are separate, but no, they are not. Hopefully that's not confusing as it sounds. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top