# Article Critical of "Two Kingdom" view



## Marrow Man

What do you think about the following article by Gary DeMar, which criticizes the two kingdom approach to society?


----------



## Skyler

First, I think that if his depiction of Reformed "two kingdoms" theology is correct, it("two kingdoms" theology) certainly needs extensive work.

Secondly, if not, my understanding of Reformed TK theology needs work--well, it does even if that is correct. 

That's actually what I'm studying right now--two kingdoms--so can anyone recommend some good freely available MP3s on the biblical foundation of TK?


----------



## Repre5entYHWH

two kingdoms podcast  i've listened to the first two.. they are awesome.


----------



## Laura

Skyler said:


> First, I think that if his depiction of Reformed "two kingdoms" theology is correct, it("two kingdoms" theology) certainly needs extensive work.
> 
> Secondly, if not, my understanding of Reformed TK theology needs work--well, it does even if that is correct.
> 
> That's actually what I'm studying right now--two kingdoms--so can anyone recommend some good freely available MP3s on the biblical foundation of TK?



My husband benefited from Dr. VanDrunen's inaugural address which deals with TK. You can find it on the WSC website; I can't seem to link to it rightly.


----------



## Skyler

Repre5entYHWH said:


> two kingdoms podcast  i've listened to the first two.. they are awesome.



Can you download them though? I haven't figured out how. I'd love to listen to them if I could download them.


----------



## Jon Peters

It reads like a caricature, but I'm a relatively new convert from post-mil theonomy to 2K. I will say that the bullet points he claims German Christians bought from Hitler don't sound like the 2K advocates I've heard and read. 


"The Gospel frees us from this world, frees us from all ​questions of this world, frees us inwardly, also from the ​questions of public life, also from the social question. ​Christianity has no answer to these questions."

I've never heard a 2K advocate say or imply such a thing.


----------



## Casey

Laura said:


> My husband benefited from Dr. VanDrunen's inaugural address which deals with TK. You can find it on the WSC website; I can't seem to link to it rightly.


This was published (with notes) in _WTJ_ 70 (2008): 207-24. Here is a link to the text version on the WSC site. MP3 audio here.


----------



## Zenas

Cue dramatic music.


----------



## Spinningplates2

I read the article and thought is was very good. People can "cue the dramitic music" but we are already getting news that the two kingdoms could be a very dangerous way to live. For example, let's take a case right here in Illinois, for now if a person works in a phamacy and has a moral objection they would not have to fill a perscription for the "morning after" pill but the courts are moving to Force anyone with a license to fill ANY perscription. Also Doctors are being told that soon they may have to perforn abortions. God's laws are still what Christ calls perfect and it seems that God is pleased to bless those who love his Law and bless nations tha follow His law and keep there people from sin.


----------



## Brother John

Repre5entYHWH said:


> two kingdoms podcast  i've listened to the first two.. they are awesome.



Where do you find this podcast?


----------



## Skyler

Blev3rd said:


> Repre5entYHWH said:
> 
> 
> 
> two kingdoms podcast  i've listened to the first two.. they are awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you find this podcast?
Click to expand...


The Two Kingdoms

It's done by Gene Cook and Jonathan Goundry, the same guys who do The Narrow Mind.

I assume this is the same Two Kingdoms podcast...?


----------



## brianeschen

I thought DeMar did a good job on the article. I especially like how he points out that civil rulers are "ministers of God" (Romans 13) and are therefore required to render Him obedience.


----------



## Repre5entYHWH

you can go to the itunes store on your itunes programs and just type in two kingdoms


----------



## Skyler

brianeschen said:


> I thought DeMar did a good job on the article. I especially like how he points out that civil rulers are "ministers of God" (Romans 13) and are therefore required to render Him obedience.



Ministers of God or not, they're still required to render him obedience!


----------



## mvdm

Jon Peters said:


> It reads like a caricature, but I'm a relatively new convert from post-mil theonomy to 2K. I will say that the bullet points he claims German Christians bought from Hitler don't sound like the 2K advocates I've heard and read.
> 
> 
> "The Gospel frees us from this world, frees us from all ​questions of this world, frees us inwardly, also from the ​questions of public life, also from the social question. ​Christianity has no answer to these questions."
> 
> I've never heard a 2K advocate say or imply such a thing.



I'd suggest then looking more closely at the writings of Scott Clark and Michael Horton. Some excerpts:

From Clark:

_Special revelation wasn’t given to norm cultural or civil life. E.g. if we wish to apply special revelation to civil life, then we should all become theonomists... _

_...cultural issues are not well addressed from the kingdom of God (Word, sacraments, and discipline). Rather they are best addressed from creational or natural revelation. _

_More importantly, the civil or common (not neutral) realm is not a “gospel” realm. it is a legal realm. It belongs not to the covenant of grace but to the covenant of works._ 

_...how, from a “two kingdoms” perspective one should think about the question of whether the state should sanction homosexual marriage. 

The moral law of God has been revealed in creation and re-stated, in the context of the national covenant with Israel. For the purposes of deciding deciding post-theocratic civil questions, the national covenant having been fulfilled by Christ and thus having expired and having been abrogated, it is proper to appeal to the natural revelation of the moral law in creation._

_..The truth is that Christians and non-Christians live together in the same world at the same time and in much the same way much of the time. It is much less clear what is distinctively Christian about the allegedly “Christian” view of any number of penultimate matters...

What precisely is “Christian” about “Christian” art? It has Christian themes, but if we obey the second commandment and do not attempt to represent the deity (including God the Son incarnate) then what is Christian about “Christian” art? _

From Horton:

_..So what is the relationship of Christians to culture in this time between the times? Is Jesus Christ Lord over secular powers and principalities? At least in Reformed theology, the answer is yes, though he is Lord in different ways over the world and the church. God presently rules the world through providence and common grace, while he rules the church through Word, sacrament, and covenantal nurture.

This means that there is no difference between Christians and non-Christians with respect to their vocations…_

_…[But] the human race is not divided at the present time between those who are blessed and those who are cursed. That time is coming, of course, but in this present age, believers and unbelievers alike share in the pains of childbirth, the burdens of labor, the temporal effects of their own sins, and the eventual surrender of their decaying bodies to death…there is in this present age a category for that which is neither holy nor unholy but simply common.”_


----------



## jwithnell

When writing about Christian education, Cornelius Van Til stated that the fundamental truth that must be taught to our children is that there are two groups of people -- covenant keepers and covenant breakers. Base on this distinction, any other kingdom delineation is a false dichotomy.


----------



## mvdm

jwithnell said:


> When writing about Christian education, Cornelius Van Til stated that the fundamental truth that must be taught to our children is that there are two groups of people -- covenant keepers and covenant breakers. Base on this distinction, any other kingdom delineation is a false dichotomy.



Considering the implications of the quotes I supplied, one could ask: is there really any such thing as "Christian education"?


----------



## LawrenceU

I may be a simple man, but to my feeble mind the Two Kingdom view is specious. How many kings are there? One.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

LawrenceU said:


> I may be a simple man, but to my feeble mind the Two Kingdom view is specious. How many kings are there? One.



There is one moral law and Lawgiver over both kingdoms yes. But the nature of the relationship is very different. Christians are sons of God in the covenant of grace, and citizens of the coming kingdom, and can only join by the regenerating work of the Spirit. Man in the covenant of works lies under God's judgment as rebels, and are citizens of the present world, reserved for destruction. There is one King over both peoples, but their relationship to the king is fundamentally different. And these peoples must live together for now, in common society, in a world that is still cursed, until Christ returns to liberate the creation from the bondage of corruption, and burn up the chaff. Somehow, despite these differences, we are to strive to live at peace with all men and yet remain faithful to the true king. There are obvious ethical/political implications in that. I don't know all the particulars of this Two Kingdom idea, but they are correct in this aspect. There is one King and one moral law, but two fundamentally different relationships and peoples.


----------



## Knoxienne

LawrenceU said:


> I may be a simple man, but to my feeble mind the Two Kingdom view is specious. How many kings are there? One.



 one King and it's all His, so one kingdom. Sounds simple to me!


----------



## LawrenceU

> There is one moral law and Lawgiver over both kingdoms yes. But the nature of the relationship is very different. Christians are sons of God in the covenant of grace, and citizens of the coming kingdom, and can only join by the regenerating work of the Spirit. Man in the covenant of works lies under God's judgment as rebels, and are citizens of the present world, reserved for destruction. There is one King over both peoples, but their relationship to the king is fundamentally different. And these peoples must live together for now, in common society, in a world that is still cursed, until Christ returns to liberate the creation from the bondage of corruption, and burn up the chaff. Somehow, despite these differences, we are to strive to live at peace with all men and yet remain faithful to the true king. There are obvious ethical/political implications in that. I don't know all the particulars of this Two Kingdom idea, but they are correct in this aspect. There is one King and one moral law, but two fundamentally different relationships and peoples.



Granted, all men are not in the same relationship with the King. But, the Law of God supersedes any laws of man. What is right in the eyes of God is always right. What is sin in the eyes of God is always sin. These facts are true regardless of one's relationship with the Law Giver. For the Christian to retreat behind the walls of the 'Kingdom of God' and refuse to hold the 'Kingdom of Man' to account for its violation of the Law of God makes no sense to me in the reading of Scriptural history. 


Luther:


> If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point



Most of the adherents I see who hold to a Two Kingdom view, or at least the view as it is practiced, are running for cover in the assault upon the Gospel in the popular culture. All they while they are proclaiming their 'superiour' theological understanding. I'm not trying to cast stones. Not at all. To me, the way it is being touted by WHI and others is judicial / forensic dispensationalism.


----------



## ewenlin

Amen to that too!


----------



## ww

> Didn't Christ say in John 18:36 "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."



No one who embraces the 2k view is saying there is more than one king and to make such a claim is specious. We just happen to embrace what Christ says in the Scripture that His is a heavenly kingdom and not an earthly one. I believe the rhetoric regarding the discussion of 2k vs theonomy occuring online borders on sinfulness and as Reformed brethren we should be able to have a civil discussion around this topic. I will be the first to admit that I have sinned in this regard.

-----Added 5/5/2009 at 11:42:53 EST-----



> To me, the way it is being touted by WHI and others is judicial / forensic dispensationalism



This is the rhetoric I'm referring to which is an absolute *ad homimen *attack. Calling Mike Horton and other Men of God "dispensationalist".


----------



## LawrenceU

whitway said:


> Didn't Christ say in John 18:36 "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one who embraces the 2k view is saying there is more than one king and to make such a claim is specious. We just happen to embrace what Christ says in the Scripture that His is a heavenly kingdom and not an earthly one. I believe the rhetoric regarding the discussion of 2k vs theonomy occuring online borders on sinfulness and as Reformed brethren we should be able to have a civil discussion around this topic. I will be the first to admit that I have sinned in this regard.
Click to expand...



I hope you don't take my comments in that regard. I, too think the internet debate has become too heated. I also agree that the Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. I also, don't believe that the 2K view teaches a two king view (Although I have heard that more than once.) I just disagree with the way the 2K view seems to fairly consistently lead to a retreat into no longer being salt and light in the world in which we have be placed.

-----Added 5/5/2009 at 11:49:14 EST-----



> To me, the way it is being touted by WHI and others is judicial / forensic dispensationalism





> This is the rhetoric I'm referring to which is an absolute *ad homimen *attack. Calling Mike Horton and other Men of God "dispensationalist".



I'm sorry that you see it that way. If you look carefully, I was not addressing the men. I was addressing the view. I referenced the men because they are the most prominent spokesmen. I also am not calling them 'dispensationalist'. I am calling the *view* 'judicial / forensic dispensationalism'.

I really didn't mean to his such a nerve.


----------



## Marrow Man

Lawrence, perhaps it would be helpful if you were to define "judicial/forensic dispensationalism" so that we are working from the same definition and so that there are no misunderstandings or unintentional insults.

Something else to consider: to what extent did the Reformers hold to a 2K view? For instance, would it be fair to accuse (as the article would seem to do) Luther, the Reformed theologian of justification _par excellence_, of forensic dispensationalism? Perhaps so, perhaps not; I'm just asking the question at this point.


----------



## sastark

LawrenceU said:


> To me, the way it is being touted by WHI and others is *judicial / forensic dispensationalism*.



Exactly.


----------



## chbrooking

I'd like to see both sides of this debate define their terms. What was presented in the article as the 2k view seemed, to me, to be a caricature. Many of the comments which followed the OP make sense if we adopt the caricature. But would proponents of the 2k view approve of the presentation of their view?


----------



## SRoper

I didn't recognize the view Gary DeMar describes as Two Kingdoms.


----------



## Jon Peters

None of the anti-2K comments in this thread so far have addressed the 2K view that I understand. But, then again, the caricature is a lot more fun (and easier) to attack.

Do you Theonomists really think you can engage secular culture by a theology that believes rebellious children should be stoned to death? Oh, wait. Is that a caricature?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

There is a reason I no longer engage in these debates on the Puritan Board.


----------



## Marrow Man

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> There is a reason I no longer engage in these debates on the Puritan Board.



Well, we do need to play nice in the sandbox with one another or we will have to lock down yet another PB thread. Since this is my baby, I would rather not see that happen.

Healthy discussion would be nice, however. Let's refocus on these questions: Did the Reformers generally hold to a 2K view? Is this the view of the majority of the confessions? Were the Reformers influenced by medieval notions and therefore wrong? What is each side attempting to say?


----------



## R Harris

Marrow Man said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a reason I no longer engage in these debates on the Puritan Board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we do need to play nice in the sandbox with one another or we will have to lock down yet another PB thread. Since this is my baby, I would rather not see that happen.
> 
> Healthy discussion would be nice, however. Let's refocus on these questions: Did the Reformers generally hold to a 2K view? Is this the view of the majority of the confessions? Were the Reformers influenced by medieval notions and therefore wrong? What is each side attempting to say?
Click to expand...


To me, it is troubling how people read things with such obvious presuppositional biases. I really get the impression that the 2K people read the article through their lenses and then proceed to attack DeMar because they don't care much for him or any other theonomist/NC.

But to your inquiry; I don't think there is any doubt that a careful, objective reader of Calvin, Knox, or any other major reformer AFTER Luther (again note that DeMar stated UP TO Luther - Calvin and Knox could be classified as being after Luther, if only slightly) would understand where they stood on this issue. In fact, all one has to do is read the *ORIGINAL* WCF at Chapter 23, section 3 to get the answer as to where the vast majority of the 17th century reformers stood. (I say original because the AMERICANS obviously revised section 3 in 1789, having been caught up in US Constitution fever and enlightenment thinking ON THIS ISSUE rather than the teachings of Scripture.)

But to the saying of Benjamin (Backwoods Presbyterian), I do concur with him. It is not as if these arguments have been made for the first time. Just like with EP, or baptism, or any of the other controversial doctrinal positions, the same arguments get repeated again . . . and again . . . and again . . . until people give up from exhaustion. 

So, like with Backwoods Presbyterian, my posting has become rare and selective as with also the selection of topics I even care to read.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Marrow Man said:


> Lawrence, perhaps it would be helpful if you were to define "judicial/forensic dispensationalism" so that we are working from the same definition and so that there are no misunderstandings or unintentional insults.
> 
> Something else to consider: to what extent did the Reformers hold to a 2K view? For instance, would it be fair to accuse (as the article would seem to do) Luther, the Reformed theologian of justification _par excellence_, of forensic dispensationalism? Perhaps so, perhaps not; I'm just asking the question at this point.



I think at its core the difference is this: the Reformed view of 2k has the civil magistrate enforcing both tables of the Decalogue, while the neo 2k only has the second table.

I think all other differences come out of this difference.

CT


----------



## tcalbrecht

ChristianTrader said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lawrence, perhaps it would be helpful if you were to define "judicial/forensic dispensationalism" so that we are working from the same definition and so that there are no misunderstandings or unintentional insults.
> 
> Something else to consider: to what extent did the Reformers hold to a 2K view? For instance, would it be fair to accuse (as the article would seem to do) Luther, the Reformed theologian of justification _par excellence_, of forensic dispensationalism? Perhaps so, perhaps not; I'm just asking the question at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I think at its core the difference is this: the Reformed view of 2k has the civil magistrate enforcing both tables of the Decalogue, while the neo 2k only has the second table.*
> 
> I think all other differences come out of this difference.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


That is it in a nutshell. WSC-style 2K is not your (Reformed fore-)father's 2K.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Jon Peters said:


> None of the anti-2K comments in this thread so far have addressed the 2K view that I understand. But, then again, the caricature is a lot more fun (and easier) to attack.
> 
> Do you Theonomists really think you can engage secular culture by a theology that believes rebellious children should be stoned to death? Oh, wait. Is that a caricature?



Um, we are to engage secular culture with the truth. If that truth is something that the culture does not like, does that imply that we somehow water it down to make it palatable? 

If we are not to water it down, then I am not sure what the point of your second paragraph is?

CT


----------



## tcalbrecht

Gleened from another list, this link to the Dordt College faculty publication "Pro Rege" contains two articles challenging neo 2K.

http://www.dordt.edu/publications/pro_rege/crcpi/Pro_Rege_Mar_2009.pdf


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Very interesting discussion in an area I am ignorant of.

Hermonta (CT), what do you see as the truth we are to engage secular culture with?

I am about to give a public lecture ("The Da Vinci Code vs. the Greek New Testament"), and am aiming for non-Christians to attend, not Christians. The "truth" I will try to present (in the 2nd half) is the relevance of the Word of God, the reality of the presence of God, the wickedness of man, the coming judgment, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and everlasting life.

I am fishing for souls, to add to God's Kingdom, and to our church. If the Lord grants us success, I expect some opposition for spoiling the kingdom of the world, which in its entirety lies in wickedness (1 John 5:19).

Do you think I err in my outlook?


----------



## ww

LawrenceU said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't Christ say in John 18:36 "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one who embraces the 2k view is saying there is more than one king and to make such a claim is specious. We just happen to embrace what Christ says in the Scripture that His is a heavenly kingdom and not an earthly one. I believe the rhetoric regarding the discussion of 2k vs theonomy occuring online borders on sinfulness and as Reformed brethren we should be able to have a civil discussion around this topic. I will be the first to admit that I have sinned in this regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you don't take my comments in that regard. I, too think the internet debate has become too heated. I also agree that the Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. I also, don't believe that the 2K view teaches a two king view (Although I have heard that more than once.) I just disagree with the way the 2K view seems to fairly consistently lead to a retreat into no longer being salt and light in the world in which we have be placed.
> 
> -----Added 5/5/2009 at 11:49:14 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me, the way it is being touted by WHI and others is judicial / forensic dispensationalism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the rhetoric I'm referring to which is an absolute *ad homimen *attack. Calling Mike Horton and other Men of God "dispensationalist".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry that you see it that way. If you look carefully, I was not addressing the men. I was addressing the view. I referenced the men because they are the most prominent spokesmen. I also am not calling them 'dispensationalist'. I am calling the *view* 'judicial / forensic dispensationalism'.
> 
> I really didn't mean to his such a nerve.
Click to expand...


Lawrence,

You are looking at it with a theonomist lense. The 2k view is not saying that we should not be active in the policital sphere nor is it saying we shouldn't be salt and light but that we should understand how we as Christians and even more importantly the Church should be involved. Whereas a Theonomist would want to take their particular application of the Law (and there are numerous and when it all came out in the wash among all the Evangelicals there would be no consensus) and force it upon Society. Rather than coerce others into obeying the Law of God as Theonomy wants to do we believe that we should be about the business of Evangelism and reaching the lost so that the may have the Law fulfilled on their behalf as we who know Christ. 

I am a Libertarian and have been more politically active since becoming Libertarian than I was when I was a Conservative Republican for 2 decades. We are both at the Tea Parties. I oppose Government intrustion, support States rights, want our taxes cut and want the Freedoms granted to me by the Constitution to be upheld. What I don't want is for the Church and the State to be in bed together. I don't want the State telling the Church how to do things nor do I want the Church trying to be the State. I want the Church to be the Church. Does that make sense?

As far as the "Dispensationalist" charge you need to substantiate it that is why I called it what it was "ad hominen". Lay out your proof that what Michael Horton teaches is Dispensational and we can go from there. Actually you didn't hit a nerve at all I'm just calling it the way I see it. I don't think what 2k Theology teaches ala Westminster Seminary in Escondido teaches is "Dispensational" I believe it to be Confessional. And those who want to charge it as "Dispensational" need to lay it out for the rest of us so we can respond appropriately. 

In any event not sure if the discussion can be salvaged or not but as Christian Reformed brothers in Christ we should be able to do so civily. However some have said that it hasn't been possible and if that is the case then we will have to agree to disagree.

-----Added 5/5/2009 at 05:20:00 EST-----



Marrow Man said:


> What do you think about the following article by Gary DeMar, which criticizes the two kingdom approach to society?



 Caricature to the point of not even being worthy of a response to be quite frank.


----------



## LawrenceU

Wayne, thanks for the reply. What I am responding to is the increasing 'retreatism' that I see and hear discussed coming from those that use the 2k view as their reasoning.

As to the the charge of 'judicial/forensic dispensational' moniker. I will admit that I have a theonomic bent. But, I don't believe that it is jaundicing what I see. I'm not referring to 'Dispensationalism' but using the term 'dispensational' because the extremes to which I see some proponents of the 2k view go regarding the Christian's place in the public arena. They appear to divorce the Law of God from having any application in arenas beyond the Church and Christians. I am not referring here to the Levitical Code. Thus it is 'dispensational'. God's Law only applies to the church. It cannot and should not be expected that the world system be brought into compliance with it.

Right now I am battling a pretty bad stomach bug and don't have time to go back and dig out the references. I'm sorry for that. I'm just not up to it. But, when I hear the current voices telling Christians that they should not be involved in political action, should not call the world to account for violating the Law, and other things as this I sit and scratch my head. I agree that political action is not going to 'bring the Kingdom of God to earth'. But, that does not mean that we should not work diligently to have our laws reflect the nature of God.

Further, I have heard pastors lately saying that the Church has no business making public statements regarding public policy. This was in the context of homosexual marriage. Their reason? Public law is in the realm of the world. We have nothing to say to that. We can make statements within the church, but it is not our role to speak to the world regarding issues that pertain to the church. These were Reformed men.


----------



## Scott1

May we have a definition of the "two kingdom view" from people on both sides of this issue?


----------



## Jon Peters

ChristianTrader said:


> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the anti-2K comments in this thread so far have addressed the 2K view that I understand. But, then again, the caricature is a lot more fun (and easier) to attack.
> 
> Do you Theonomists really think you can engage secular culture by a theology that believes rebellious children should be stoned to death? Oh, wait. Is that a caricature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, we are to engage secular culture with the truth. If that truth is something that the culture does not like, does that imply that we somehow water it down to make it palatable?
> 
> If we are not to water it down, then I am not sure what the point of your second paragraph is?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


CT, my point was that we don't ( and shouldn't) stone rebellious children. We don't live under the typological nation of Israel. It sometimes seems as though Theonomists evangelize with a law book. Israel could not stand under the yoke of the law. What makes you think that modern nations can stand under the yoke of the law? Lest someone be confused as to what exactly I mean by the law, I am referring to those elements commonly referred to as civil.


----------



## sastark

Jon Peters said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jon Peters said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the anti-2K comments in this thread so far have addressed the 2K view that I understand. But, then again, the caricature is a lot more fun (and easier) to attack.
> 
> Do you Theonomists really think you can engage secular culture by a theology that believes rebellious children should be stoned to death? Oh, wait. Is that a caricature?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, we are to engage secular culture with the truth. If that truth is something that the culture does not like, does that imply that we somehow water it down to make it palatable?
> 
> If we are not to water it down, then I am not sure what the point of your second paragraph is?
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CT, my point was that we don't ( and shouldn't) stone rebellious children. We don't live under the typological nation of Israel. It sometimes seems as though Theonomists evangelize with a law book. Israel could not stand under the yoke of the law. What makes you think that modern nations can stand under the yoke of the law? Lest someone be confused as to what exactly I mean by the law, I am referring to those elements commonly referred to as civil.
Click to expand...



Jon, two things:

1. Israel couldn't stand under the yoke of the law _as a prerequisite for salvation_. No theonomist claims that keeping the law is necessary for salvation, however, there is more than one use of the law (I know you know that, but it seems from your statement above that it momentarily slipped your mind). There is no indication in Scripture that the _civil_ laws of Israel were a burden to the Israelites.

2. What makes you think modern societies can stand under the yoke of _any law_? Every civilization has law breakers (that is, people who cannot/will not keep the law). What makes the US Penal Code a better alternative to OT case law?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Marrow Man said:


> What do you think about the following article by Gary DeMar, which criticizes the two kingdom approach to society?



I think the article presses an extreme that the only type of Two Kingdom view is one that is indifferent to neighbor and is concerned only with pietistic self-improvement. There are gradations between Anabaptist views of the secular culture being against the Kingdom and the Kingdoms merging to the point that there is no distinction between religious and civil authority.

I agree with the idea that a self-absorbed view of the Christian life that only sees Christianity as dealing with life in the Body as fundamentally flawed. It ignores the requirement that Christians love their neighbor by what the Law positively requires. The Word of God, properly understood, ought to cause us to desire to love neighbor not simply as an evangelical target to get them into a lifeboat and out of the sinking ship of culture. 

My love of the image of God in my neighbor impels me to treat those under my authority with care and concern. When I was in command and served in what constituted a magisterial role (with the ability to take liberty away) I could not check my Biblical convictions at the door. I rendered justice in the application of law in order to protect those that had been harmed by the violations of others. I was even able to appeal to the Law written on men's hearts to reprove them of the violation of integrity to sworn oaths to obey lawful orders.

At the same time, however, I distinctly remember a Reformed talk show host in SoCal around 2000-2002 who was so concerned with the Church having a militant role in transforming culture that he once brought a Roman Catholic fellow on his show. The gentleman was concerned that Churches were not preaching enough on the evils of culture and, in particular, the slaughter of innocent children through abortion.

On the one hand, I stand with many who are reviled by the death of millions of innocents. On the other hand, I could not reckon that the group had the right to dictate to ministers the proportion of sermons that had to be devoted to the topic of speaking out about the evils of culture from the pulpit. If they didn't meet this minimal requirement then his group would picket that Church and placard pictures of aborted infants to shame the Church that they were not militant enough in preaching against this evil.

My question to the Roman Catholic when I called into the show was simple: How is a Roman Catholic in any position to dictate to a Preacher of the Word what he is going to preach on? He was shocked that I challenged that he even was in a position to understand the Scriptures and their proper exposition and the host quickly changed the subject rather than get into the issue of whether or not the Roman Catholic Church was even preaching the Gospel.

Interestingly enough, we have a thread right now about whether or not preaching ought to be topical or expositional. If expositional then what is the Minister to do if the text he is faithfully expositing does not preach explicitly on the 6th Commandment? Ought ministers, in this culture, forego expository preaching because the Word does not regularly enough deal with the wickedness we find ourselves in and among? When has the culture ever been in a state where a preacher can leave the topic of wicked men oppressing and killing innocents for it certainly existed at the time of Paul when Roman citizens regularly abandoned unwanted children?

The Word, properly preached, transforms men. Men transformed ought to care about and love their neighbor and be impelled by the love of Christ to love neighbor in vocation and as they engage the culture. Even so, ministers of the Word need to be properly distinguished for the role they serve as undershepherds for Christ's flock. There are evils within the boundaries of the Church and elder care and shepherding does not mean that the minister spends the majority of his energy as the organizer of a Political Action Committee to transform society. 

Proper preaching and catchetical instruction of the entire flock will have a quality all their own. Christians of the early centuries transformed the culture around them because they became known as people that would take in infants that nobody wanted. They were ridiculed for the fact that, although in poverty themselves, they would feed and care for another mouth that could give them nothing in return.

I can't quite articulate what I'm trying to say and feel like I'm rambling. I just believe some of us spend far too much time planning for the ideal community rather than starting where we currently live among men and women stumbling about in darkness who need to see that our love for Christ causes us to love our neighbor in ways that is surprising. Are men and women attracted to Christ by the fact that we constantly tell them how stupid they are for being dead in their sins or are we willing to bless them in ways that they cannot understand.

My friends, Matt and Karen, had to return an adopted child to a mother who lives on a reservation and is dead in her sins and trespasses. They returned the child with tears knowing that the mother would likely not care for the baby but had no other choice. They could have railed against her foolishness but, instead, mailed hundreds of dollars of baby supplies and gave instructions to the mother on how to care for this infant. They brought a $200 gift certificate to the mother to buy infant supplies and, in the presence of the lawyers, shared the Gospel to this woman who desperately needed the light of God's redemption in Christ. The lawyers present were moved to tears by the love of a Church that sent forth this gift not because the mother had been wise but because they loved this child and wanted its good and could do no more to bless the child.

That's what the Gospel does.


----------



## Marrow Man

Semper Fidelis said:


> I can't quite articulate what I'm trying to say and feel like I'm rambling.



No, I think you said things quite well. The gospel transforms, pure and simple. Even Rushdooney said that.

Thank you for one of the best response posts I've read on the PB.


----------



## chbrooking

I don't see the 2k view as necessarily a position of retreat. Again, caricatures. Sure, there are some, perhaps many. But retreat isn't inherent to the position itself.


----------



## Casey

Marrow Man said:


> Let's refocus on these questions: Did the Reformers generally hold to a 2K view? Is this the view of the majority of the confessions? Were the Reformers influenced by medieval notions and therefore wrong? What is each side attempting to say?





Scott1 said:


> May we have a definition of the "two kingdom view" from people on both sides of this issue?


I've detected the term "two kingdoms" being used in three different ways (if you want to define terms, here's a start; I've included quotes). I don't believe any Reformed confessions/catechisms follow the WSC understanding of the doctrine (as espoused, e.g., by VanDrunen's A_ Biblical Case for Natural Law_). My preliminary conclusion is that the WSC doctrine is a novelty piggy-backing familiar terminology, but I'm happy to be corrected. I'm also convinced that the WSC2K vs. theonomy framework of the debate is a false dichotomy; it's not an either-or, there are other options.


----------



## MW

In terms of evaluating different teachings on Church and State (the two kingdoms), it is always good to look at the subject historically to see what options are available and where the lines of demarcation are to be drawn. There are basically only four views: the Romanist, with its teaching of temporal supremacy, makes the State subservient to the Church; the Anabaptist, which turns the Church into a State or otherwise disowns the State altogether; the Lutheran (not Luther, but post 19th century Lutheranism), so separates the State from the Church as to make the State a law unto itself and the Christian to live two entirely separate lives, one public and one private, with religion being relegated to the private sector; and the Reformed (which Luther and early Lutheranism shared to some extent), which maintains the distinction and connection of Church and State as both existing under the rule of God.

It should be noted that the American revision to the Westminster Standards is still essentially reformed in that it maintains the distinction and connection of Church and State, but merely disowns the characteristic of the Scottish and Dutch churches in which a specific denomination was established. The idea of a "Christian State" was still a feature of American Presbyterian churches up until the separations from mainline churches took place in the 20th century.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Spinningplates2 said:


> but we are already getting news that the two kingdoms could be a very dangerous way to live.


the 2 kingdom view is dangerous because it is wrong. Nowhere is scripture is a Christian remotely allowed to live a compartmentalized life. A Christian is sanctified in his person by the Holy Spirit, and this sanctification affects his family, his church and his community.

Let me give you an example. I have a Pentecostal Christian friend that attended University in the caribbean. He became the President of the student government association. Certain monies are given to the student government association to engage in activities. One of the activities of former Presidents was the throwing of riotous bacchanalia parties (typical). When my friend became President, his Christian conscience wouldn't permit it, and he banned such parties under his tenure, and used the money to do a construction project. Do you think the Lord was happy that my friend didn't succumb to the Two Kingdom's view? Yes. And even if throwing this party was law, my friend would have delayed it until his tenure was up.


----------



## R Harris

armourbearer said:


> It should be noted that the American revision to the Westminster Standards is still essentially reformed in that it maintains the distinction and connection of Church and State, but merely disowns the characteristic of the Scottish and Dutch churches in which a specific denomination was established. The idea of a "Christian State" was still a feature of American Presbyterian churches up until the separations from mainline churches took place in the 20th century.



Not sure I agree with this, I would have to see the evidence. Once the Americans made the WCF revision to Chapter XXIII section 3 in 1789, I believe that the majority of Presbyterian denominations essentially adopted a 2K view. To my knowledge, only the American Covenanters (RPCNA) maintained the original section 3 language, but there might have been others. I know that Chris would have the answer!

But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the _duty_ to suppress heresies? Hard to believe that, given the number of heresies that arose in the US during the 19th century. But yes, you are correct that after the declines in orthodoxy really accelerated after WWII, the 2K and event the baptistic view of the state started having supremacy.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I haven't studied this Randy but have thought about doing so; and have breezed through Irons paper and am skeptical of the extent to which he takes the revisions for an interpretive grid for the unmodified sections which Bahnsen raises. But when all is said and done I seriously doubt the views of 1788 equate to what is being presented by some as a 2 kingdoms view. But that is all I'm prepared to say. 
http://www.upper-register.com/papers/1788_revision.pdf



R Harris said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should be noted that the American revision to the Westminster Standards is still essentially reformed in that it maintains the distinction and connection of Church and State, but merely disowns the characteristic of the Scottish and Dutch churches in which a specific denomination was established. The idea of a "Christian State" was still a feature of American Presbyterian churches up until the separations from mainline churches took place in the 20th century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure I agree with this, I would have to see the evidence. Once the Americans made the WCF revision to Chapter XXIII section 3 in 1789, I believe that the majority of Presbyterian denominations essentially adopted a 2K view. To my knowledge, only the American Covenanters (RPCNA) maintained the original section 3 language, but there might have been others. I know that Chris would have the answer!
> 
> But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the _duty_ to suppress heresies? Hard to believe that, given the number of heresies that arose in the US during the 19th century. But yes, you are correct that after the declines in orthodoxy really accelerated after WWII, the 2K and event the baptistic view of the state started having supremacy.
Click to expand...


----------



## Marrow Man

R Harris said:


> But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the _duty_ to suppress heresies? Hard to believe that, given the number of heresies that arose in the US during the 19th century. But yes, you are correct that after the declines in orthodoxy really accelerated after WWII, the 2K and event the baptistic view of the state started having supremacy.



Hmmm, that is an interesting observation. But I'm assuming the Church of Scotland is still under the original wording of the WCF. I'm not up on my British governmental powers, but what has the magistrate there done in the last 200 years to suppress heresies? I'm not voicing that as a challenge, but as a genuine inquiry.


----------



## ww

Anton Bruckner said:


> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but we are already getting news that the two kingdoms could be a very dangerous way to live.
> 
> 
> 
> the 2 kingdom view is dangerous because it is wrong. Nowhere is scripture is a Christian remotely allowed to live a compartmentalized life. A Christian is sanctified in his person by the Holy Spirit, and this sanctification affects his family, his church and his community.
> 
> Let me give you an example. I have a Pentecostal Christian friend that attended University in the caribbean. He became the President of the student government association. Certain monies are given to the student government association to engage in activities. One of the activities of former Presidents was the throwing of riotous bacchanalia parties (typical). When my friend became President, his Christian conscience wouldn't permit it, and he banned such parties under his tenure, and used the money to do a construction project. Do you think the Lord was happy that my friend didn't succumb to the Two Kingdom's view? Yes. And even if throwing this party was law, my friend would have delayed it until his tenure was up.
Click to expand...


This unfortunately is erecting a strawman as no 2ker I know including myself is saying that one must live a compartmentalized life or violate his conscience or God's Law in the public sphere.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Marrow Man said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the _duty_ to suppress heresies? Hard to believe that, given the number of heresies that arose in the US during the 19th century. But yes, you are correct that after the declines in orthodoxy really accelerated after WWII, the 2K and event the baptistic view of the state started having supremacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, that is an interesting observation. But I'm assuming the Church of Scotland is still under the original wording of the WCF. I'm not up on my British governmental powers, but what has the magistrate there done in the last 200 years to suppress heresies? I'm not voicing that as a challenge, but as a genuine inquiry.
Click to expand...


Actually, the Church of Scotland modified the original section with a disclaimer upon adopting it, something to the effect that "this does not entail a principal of persecution." One of our Confessional scholars could probably provide a more accurate quote. Many of the Divines were concerned with Erastianism.


----------



## R Harris

Marrow Man said:


> Hmmm, that is an interesting observation. But I'm assuming the Church of Scotland is still under the original wording of the WCF. I'm not up on my British governmental powers, but what has the magistrate there done in the last 200 years to suppress heresies? I'm not voicing that as a challenge, but as a genuine inquiry.



You are correct, my friend. Sadly, this issue applies to the whole WCF, as we see with the "degree of subscription" debate going on. Just because one _says_ he agrees to and abides by the WCF doesn't actually mean that he really believes it or really abides by it. I am sure the Church of Scotland has many offenders.

As for the nation of Scotland, that sad story has been plain for all to see for the last century or so. The fact that John Knox is buried somewhere under or very close to a parking lot should tell us all we need to know.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

As I noted above, that was the Free Church in the mid 19th century which rejected persecuting principles. As far as the 17th century, you are probably thinking of the "adopting act" of the Church of Scotland where they note how they regarded the magistrates' calling of synods.


Puritan Sailor said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the _duty_ to suppress heresies? Hard to believe that, given the number of heresies that arose in the US during the 19th century. But yes, you are correct that after the declines in orthodoxy really accelerated after WWII, the 2K and event the baptistic view of the state started having supremacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, that is an interesting observation. But I'm assuming the Church of Scotland is still under the original wording of the WCF. I'm not up on my British governmental powers, but what has the magistrate there done in the last 200 years to suppress heresies? I'm not voicing that as a challenge, but as a genuine inquiry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the Church of Scotland modified the original section with a disclaimer upon adopting it, something to the effect that "this does not entail a principal of persecution" or something to that effect. One of our Confessional scholars could probably provide a more accurate quote. Many of the Divines were concerned with Erastianism.
Click to expand...


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Yes, that's it. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Very interesting discussion in an area I am ignorant of.
> 
> Hermonta (CT), what do you see as the truth we are to engage secular culture with?
> 
> I am about to give a public lecture ("The Da Vinci Code vs. the Greek New Testament"), and am aiming for non-Christians to attend, not Christians. The "truth" I will try to present (in the 2nd half) is the relevance of the Word of God, the reality of the presence of God, the wickedness of man, the coming judgment, the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and everlasting life.
> 
> I am fishing for souls, to add to God's Kingdom, and to our church. If the Lord grants us success, I expect some opposition for spoiling the kingdom of the world, which in its entirety lies in wickedness (1 John 5:19).
> 
> Do you think I err in my outlook?



Looks good to me.


----------



## Casey

whitway said:


> This unfortunately is erecting a strawman as no 2ker I know including myself is saying that one must live a compartmentalized life or violate his conscience or God's Law in the public sphere.


Not entirely a straw man, since the WSC2K view posits a dual ethic. We have yet to see what happens when the rubber meets the road in America. In Germany we know what happened with the Lutherans and the crisis their two-kingdom theology brought them.


----------



## MW

R Harris said:


> Once the Americans made the WCF revision to Chapter XXIII section 3 in 1789, I believe that the majority of Presbyterian denominations essentially adopted a 2K view.



If one reads the Southern Presbyterian Thornwell and compares him with the Scottish Presbyterian Bannerman, it will be seen that the two agree with the moral obligations of the State towards Chritianity, but only differ on the State's duty towards establishing a particular church.

One needs to be careful when mapping out the state of the question not to confuse voluntaryism with political pluralism.



R Harris said:


> But to a specific - would the majority of American Presbyterian denominations have agreed with the original WCF language that the magistrate has the _duty_ to suppress heresies?



I think many old schoolers would agree in principle that it is the magistrate's duty to suppress heresy, but the problem is with how this can be practically carried out under a so-called democracy.


----------



## ww

CaseyBessette said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> This unfortunately is erecting a strawman as no 2ker I know including myself is saying that one must live a compartmentalized life or violate his conscience or God's Law in the public sphere.
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely a straw man, since the WSC2K view posits a dual ethic. We have yet to see what happens when the rubber meets the road in America. In Germany we know what happened with the Lutherans and the crisis their two-kingdom theology brought them.
Click to expand...


Casey. Demonstrate the Dual Ethic rather than just continue to make assertions. There is a dual citizenship as layed out by Christ in the New Testament when He commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesars and He stated clearly that His Kingdom was not of this world. Doesn't mean we aren't politically active. What it does mean is we understand our roles.

Hitler isn't the result of Lutherans "two kingdom theology" and to suggest such is frivolous at best . So are you saying that Luther, the father of the Reformation is responsible for the Killing of 6 million Jews? Sounds like you are when in fact it may have been the result of a misinterpretation of 2k theology. It isn't the silver bullet you were looking for however I know it sounds good. Just another caricature. 

I'd like to see the rubber hit the road with Theonomy and its various abberations.


----------



## ChristianTrader

whitway said:


> CaseyBessette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> This unfortunately is erecting a strawman as no 2ker I know including myself is saying that one must live a compartmentalized life or violate his conscience or God's Law in the public sphere.
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely a straw man, since the WSC2K view posits a dual ethic. We have yet to see what happens when the rubber meets the road in America. In Germany we know what happened with the Lutherans and the crisis their two-kingdom theology brought them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Casey. Demonstrate the Dual Ethic rather than just continue to make assertions. There is a dual citizenship as layed out by Christ in the New Testament when He commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesars and He stated clearly that His Kingdom was not of this world. Doesn't mean we aren't politically active. What it does mean is we understand our roles.
> 
> Hitler isn't the result of Lutherans "two kingdom theology" and to suggest such is frivolous at best . So are you saying that Luther, the father of the Reformation is responsible for the Killing of 6 million Jews? Sounds like you are when in fact it may have been the result of a misinterpretation of 2k theology. It isn't the silver bullet you were looking for however I know it sounds good. Just another caricature.
> 
> I'd like to see the rubber hit the road with Theonomy and its various abberations.
Click to expand...


Does not the lack of enforcement of both tables of the decalogue imply a dual ethic?

CT


----------



## ww

ChristianTrader said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaseyBessette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely a straw man, since the WSC2K view posits a dual ethic. We have yet to see what happens when the rubber meets the road in America. In Germany we know what happened with the Lutherans and the crisis their two-kingdom theology brought them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Casey. Demonstrate the Dual Ethic rather than just continue to make assertions. There is a dual citizenship as layed out by Christ in the New Testament when He commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesars and He stated clearly that His Kingdom was not of this world. Doesn't mean we aren't politically active. What it does mean is we understand our roles.
> 
> Hitler isn't the result of Lutherans "two kingdom theology" and to suggest such is frivolous at best . So are you saying that Luther, the father of the Reformation is responsible for the Killing of 6 million Jews? Sounds like you are when in fact it may have been the result of a misinterpretation of 2k theology. It isn't the silver bullet you were looking for however I know it sounds good. Just another caricature.
> 
> I'd like to see the rubber hit the road with Theonomy and its various abberations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does not the lack of enforcement of both tables of the decalogue imply a dual ethic?
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


No it implies a Christian Ethic as Christ Himself taught us in the New Testament. You lack distinctions between Civil Magistrates and the Church.


----------



## Casey

whitway said:


> Casey. Demonstrate the Dual Ethic rather than just continue to make assertions.


Just read the VanDrunen article I linked to earlier in this thread, or click here. The WSC2K view is that life is compartmentalized into two ethics, the spiritual kingdom based on special revelation the civil kingdom on natural law. Please show me if I am misunderstanding the WSC2K view.


> Hitler isn't the result of Lutherans "two kingdom theology" and to suggest such is frivolous at best . So are you saying that Luther, the father of the Reformation is responsible for the Killing of 6 million Jews? Sounds like you are when in fact it may have been the result of a misinterpretation of 2k theology. It isn't the silver bullet you were looking for however I know it sounds good. Just another caricature.


I did not say Hitler was the result of Lutheran two kingdom theology.

I did not say that Luther is responsible for the killing of 6 million Jews.

I said the Lutheran church in Germany faced a crisis on account of their two kingdom theology when Hitler rose to power.

What I said was not a caricature.


> I'd like to see the rubber hit the road with Theonomy and its various abberations.


I'm not a theonomist, so I don't see how this is relevent -- unless you are assuming that theonomy and WSC2K are the only two views. They're not.

-----Added 5/6/2009 at 08:21:41 EST-----



whitway said:


> No it implies a Christian Ethic as Christ Himself taught us in the New Testament. You lack distinctions between Civil Magistrates and the Church. However I would expect a Theonomist to mix Law and Gospel however unfortunate it may be.


You are doing the very thing you have requested others not to do (misrepresent others' views).

One need not hold the WSC2K view to hold the distinction between civil magistrates and the church.


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> Does not the lack of enforcement of both tables of the decalogue imply a dual ethic?



It doesn't imply, it is, a non-ethic. If the magistrate has no "ought" to guide him he is a law to himself. Even those who maintain that he is bound to uphold second table duties still leave the magistrate a law to himself; if he is not bound to acknowledge the one true God then he is free to interpret the second table of the law any way he pleases.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

-----Added 5/6/2009 at 08:30:50 EST-----



CaseyBessette said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> This unfortunately is erecting a strawman as no 2ker I know including myself is saying that one must live a compartmentalized life or violate his conscience or God's Law in the public sphere.
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely a straw man, since the WSC2K view posits a dual ethic. We have yet to see what happens when the rubber meets the road in America. In Germany we know what happened with the Lutherans and the crisis their two-kingdom theology brought them.
Click to expand...


I think Karl Barth's explanation for the rise of Nazism is actually more correct. 

It was a combination of liberal theology (German pantheism and idealism) and German nationalism. More bluntly, they felt that God was revealing himself in history through the progress and perfection of the German race. Lutheran 2 kingdom ideas might have allowed the situation to develop early on, but itself is not to blame. The German church had long departed from the gospel of confessional protestantism and instead was preaching the message of contemporary German culture, so it was an inevitable to get caught up with the Nazi's.

I don't think any of the 2 kingdom guys are giving up the gospel to preach the spirit of the age. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I would like to think better of my 2k brethren.


----------



## ChristianTrader

whitway said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> Casey. Demonstrate the Dual Ethic rather than just continue to make assertions. There is a dual citizenship as layed out by Christ in the New Testament when He commanded us to render unto Caesar what is Caesars and He stated clearly that His Kingdom was not of this world. Doesn't mean we aren't politically active. What it does mean is we understand our roles.
> 
> Hitler isn't the result of Lutherans "two kingdom theology" and to suggest such is frivolous at best . So are you saying that Luther, the father of the Reformation is responsible for the Killing of 6 million Jews? Sounds like you are when in fact it may have been the result of a misinterpretation of 2k theology. It isn't the silver bullet you were looking for however I know it sounds good. Just another caricature.
> 
> I'd like to see the rubber hit the road with Theonomy and its various abberations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does not the lack of enforcement of both tables of the decalogue imply a dual ethic?
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it implies a Christian Ethic as Christ Himself taught us in the New Testament. You lack distinctions between Civil Magistrates and the Church. However I would expect a Theonomist to mix Law and Gospel however unfortunate it may be.
Click to expand...


I thought everyone here admitted that the difference between the new and old 2k views is that the old one says that both tables of the Decalogue are to be enforced by the civil magistrate while the new one says that only the second table is to be enforced.

I was not making an argument over which side was correct. I was just pointing out that the new view implies a dual ethic. If one wishes to make a theological, scriptural, or whatever argument for or against such, so be it. But it is what it is.

Also one does not have to be a new 2 kingdom person in order to distinguish between the church and hte state. The issue is what the distinctions look like.

CT


----------



## Casey

I wasn't talking about my WSC2K brothers _per se_, I was talking about their view on "two kingdoms." Ideas have consequences. The Lutherans in Germany are a possible analogous historical example of those holding a similar position. There is nothing new under the sun and I'd prefer to learn from history than repeat it. Perhaps there is another historical connection more appropriate.


----------



## Myshkin

May I suggest this page for many resources on the Two-Kingdoms view:

Two_Kingdom_Social_Theory


----------



## Puritan Sailor

CaseyBessette said:


> I wasn't talking about my WSC2K brothers _per se_, I was talking about their view on "two kingdoms." Ideas have consequences. The Lutherans in Germany are a possible analogous historical example of those holding a similar position. There is nothing new under the sun and I'd prefer to learn from history than repeat it. Perhaps there is another historical connection more appropriate.



You are right, there is nothing new under the sun. 

I think the analogous situation would be that the tendency of the 2K scheme (at least as described in this thread) would have a similar effect as pietism or old-fundamentalism, influencing the Reformed microcosm in the West to retreat from cultural interaction, and further allow the anti-Christian cultural drift to have even more say in shaping our national values and policies.

I'll read through Dr. VanDrunen's piece tonight to hear both sides. I want to give him a fair hearing.


----------



## Casey

If you really want to understand VanDrunen's "system," you should check his little book.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

CaseyBessette said:


> If you really want to understand VanDrunen's "system," you should check his little book.



Well, I read the article you linked, and honestly I didn't find anything wrong with it. He basically lays out the framework of how justice is executed differently for those in the covenant of grace and those still under the covenant of works. He holds that the basics of the moral law as summarized in the Decalogue are still present in both kingdoms (pg. 3), not just the second table. This motivation to obey the law under the covenant of works is exact retribution and self-justification in light of impending judgment. Under the covenant of grace the motivation to obey is love and devotion to God from a regenerate heart, living in light of our judgment already rendered in Christ, and showing forgiveness and mercy toward our enemies. The ethical motivitions are different even though the law is the same. I see nothing wrong with this idea at all. This is perfectly orthodox Reformed theology and ethics. 

I did find one point of his very interesting, regarding the ethics of the Sermon on the Mount. In the Church, justice is not exact and retributive, nor based on our works. Instead we are to show mercy and turn the other cheek. But in the civil kingdom, justice must be exact, reward for good, punishment for evil, blood for blood, etc. 

It prompted me to ask, how could the civil magistrate enforce the Sermon on the Mount? But perhaps I will start another thread for that... 

Unfortunately, he doesn't get into specifics about how his view works out in practice, particularly in politics and culture. Does he do that in his book?


----------



## Casey

Puritan Sailor said:


> This is perfectly orthodox Reformed theology and ethics.


This seems to suggest that what he is doing is part and parcel with the tradition. But I don't think that's the case.

Let me give you one example of what I think is wrong (but please note, it's been a few months since I've read it, so this is from a fuzzy memory of what he wrote -- but I did listen to and read it a number of times so I think I understand him [but I'm happy to be corrected]):

Following his WSC2K view, the two kingdoms represent moral realms -- the church governed by special revelation and the-rest-of-life by natural law. In the church we find the grace of God, forgiveness, and mercy. The-rest-of-life is not like that: civil government, business, playing games, etc., all this (everything outside of church) is governed by natural law (covenant of works).

Is that so? Are the rules of the games we play governed by natural law? Of course not. Should our friendships be governed by strict, law-required obedience? Does the marriage relationship not allow for forgiveness and mercy? According to his system, it cannot -- a married couple is not the church. WSC2K posits dual-citizenship, so what applies to the church does not apply to a marriage even if the one married is a church member.

You might respond to my criticism by saying, "but he's talking about civil government in distinction from the church." My answer: _No he's not._ That's the novelty of his view. The civil kingdom, in his view, is not to be equated with the state. In his view, everything except the institutional church is to be governed by natural law -- including the state but apparently even our game-playing, marriages, friendships, and schools/education. It's the two-kingdom folk who say there's no such thing as a "Christian school" -- if that's true, then there's no such thing as a Christian marriage either.

I don't think a lot of people have really thought out where this line of thinking goes. No Christian education? Then WSC shouldn't exist (it's not the church, after all -- it's technically parachurch [not governed by a single denomination]). It's not "neo-Calvinism" to say that we should have an undivided heart directed towards God for all of life, it's simply Augustinian. WSC2K is a far cry from Augustine's two cities. (Augustine posited single-citizenship.)


> Unfortunately, he doesn't get into specifics about how his view works out in practice, particularly in politics and culture. Does he do that in his book?


Admittedly, his book is very short. But if you want a succinct layout of his system, the book is better -- it includes biblical arguments (though I find them unconvincing). He has a couple of articles out dealing with some cultural/political issues from the two kingdoms/natural law framework in _Modern Reformation_ (maybe someone could find and link to them).


----------



## Puritan Sailor

CaseyBessette said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is perfectly orthodox Reformed theology and ethics.
> 
> 
> 
> This seems to suggest that what he is doing is part and parcel with the tradition. But I don't think that's the case.
> 
> Let me give you one example of what I think is wrong (but please note, it's been a few months since I've read it, so this is from a fuzzy memory of what he wrote -- but I did listen to and read it a number of times so I think I understand him [but I'm happy to be corrected]):
> 
> Following his WSC2K view, the two kingdoms represent moral realms -- the church governed by special revelation and the-rest-of-life by natural law. In the church we find the grace of God, forgiveness, and mercy. The-rest-of-life is not like that: civil government, business, playing games, etc., all this (everything outside of church) is governed by natural law (covenant of works).
> 
> Is that so? Are the rules of the games we play governed by natural law? Of course not. Should our friendships be governed by strict, law-required obedience? Does the marriage relationship not allow for forgiveness and mercy? According to his system, it cannot -- a married couple is not the church. WSC2K posits dual-citizenship, so what applies to the church does not apply to a marriage even if the one married is a church member.
> 
> You might respond to my criticism by saying, "but he's talking about civil government in distinction from the church." My answer: _No he's not._ That's the novelty of his view. The civil kingdom, in his view, is not to be equated with the state. In his view, everything except the institutional church is to be governed by natural law -- including the state but apparently even our game-playing, marriages, friendships, and schools/education. It's the two-kingdom folk who say there's no such thing as a "Christian school" -- if that's true, then there's no such thing as a Christian marriage either.
Click to expand...


I guess that is not how I understood it. Granted I haven't read his other writings. But I think he is right in the way justice is dealt in the two covenants, and the way the citizens of the two kingdoms think. Those under the covenant of works do think in terms of self-justification and self-preservation. That's the way of the twisted sin nature still trying to live in terms of the covenant of works, "do this and live." The magistrate it not to show mercy to murderers. But, Christians are to show mercy. They do live in a different mindset because their justification is passed. They no longer live in self-preservation and self-justification because Christ preserves and justifies them. 

And if I understand him right, he believes this grace ethic should in fact influence our culture, relationships, workplace, etc. It's a witness to the way of life under the rule and reign of Christ in the covenant of grace. When we show mercy, we are no longer rendering the justice that is due under the covenant of works, but instead showing the recipient that there is another way to live. 

So, for example, someone sees your marriage going well, and they are having trouble, they will ask you you why, and you can tell them about the grace and love of Christ and how it changed your marriage from a relationship of competition and self-promotion, to one of sacrificial and grace-enabled love, reflecting Christ and his Church. 

That's why is was pondering aloud, could the magistrate enforce the sermon on the Mount? Because there is a different ethical motivation going on there. It's the same moral law expounded by Christ, but the motivation to keep it is much different than the law as a covenant of works. 

Now, maybe that's just me, and I'm missing what you see. I'll read up on it some more because I know this will be discussed in the future, at least in the OPC. But I don't see a problem with the article itself at this point. 



> I don't think a lot of people have really thought out where this line of thinking goes. No Christian education? Then WSC shouldn't exist (it's not the church, after all -- it's technically parachurch [not governed by a single denomination]). It's not "neo-Calvinism" to say that we should have an undivided heart directed towards God for all of life, it's simply Augustinian. WSC2K is a far cry from Augustine's two cities. (Augustine posited single-citizenship.)
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, he doesn't get into specifics about how his view works out in practice, particularly in politics and culture. Does he do that in his book?
> 
> 
> 
> Admittedly, his book is very short. But if you want a succinct layout of his system, the book is better -- it includes biblical arguments (though I find them unconvincing). He has a couple of articles out dealing with some cultural/political issues from the two kingdoms/natural law framework in _Modern Reformation_ (maybe someone could find and link to them).
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I'll have to save up for his book. The cheapest is $50 on Amazon... Unless there's a different book you are referring to? I'll try to look those articles up. Thanks for the interaction brother.


----------



## Jen

Puritan Sailor said:


> Unfortunately, I'll have to save up for his book. The cheapest is $50 on Amazon... Unless there's a different book you are referring to? I'll try to look those articles up. Thanks for the interaction brother.



That's ridiculous (and I mean the Amazon sellers trying to sell it for $89). Just buy it straight from us -- it's only $7.82.


----------



## Casey

Puritan Sailor said:


> Unfortunately, I'll have to save up for his book. The cheapest is $50 on Amazon... Unless there's a different book you are referring to? I'll try to look those articles up. Thanks for the interaction brother.


Based on your response, I think you're misunderstanding my critique of his position.  I probably didn't articulate it well . . .

 $50! _Whoa!_ That's _way_ over-priced! Don't pay that much for it, friend! It's $6 here.


----------



## he beholds

Anton Bruckner said:


> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but we are already getting news that the two kingdoms could be a very dangerous way to live.
> 
> 
> 
> the 2 kingdom view is dangerous because it is wrong. Nowhere is scripture is a Christian remotely allowed to live a compartmentalized life. A Christian is sanctified in his person by the Holy Spirit, and this sanctification affects his family, his church and his community.
> 
> Let me give you an example. I have a Pentecostal Christian friend that attended University in the caribbean. He became the President of the student government association. Certain monies are given to the student government association to engage in activities. One of the activities of former Presidents was the throwing of riotous bacchanalia parties (typical). When my friend became President, his Christian conscience wouldn't permit it, and he banned such parties under his tenure, and used the money to do a construction project. Do you think the Lord was happy that my friend didn't succumb to the Two Kingdom's view? Yes. And even if throwing this party was law, my friend would have delayed it until his tenure was up.
Click to expand...




armourbearer said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does not the lack of enforcement of both tables of the decalogue imply a dual ethic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't imply, it is, a non-ethic. It the magistrate has no "ought" to guide him he is a law to himself. Even those who maintain that he is bound to uphold second table duties still leave the magistrate a law to himself; if he is not bound to acknowledge the one true God then he is free to interpret the second table of the law any way he pleases.
Click to expand...



I agree with you, but I think this matters on a personal level with the Magistrate. There can be Christian magistrates in non-Christian countries who interpret the law just as well as one would in a Christian country. And some can do better than would a pretend Christian leader in a Christian country. And even the ways that different Christians understand and interpret laws/ The Law are different! Some have more liberty than others, while others have more license. How to reconcile this politically? I would rather know that I am responsible for living a godly life as my conscience declares, than depend on the government to flesh that out for me! I would rather my church use her authority to punish adultery than the removed government.


----------



## ZackF

ChristianTrader said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lawrence, perhaps it would be helpful if you were to define "judicial/forensic dispensationalism" so that we are working from the same definition and so that there are no misunderstandings or unintentional insults.
> 
> Something else to consider: to what extent did the Reformers hold to a 2K view? For instance, would it be fair to accuse (as the article would seem to do) Luther, the Reformed theologian of justification _par excellence_, of forensic dispensationalism? Perhaps so, perhaps not; I'm just asking the question at this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think at its core the difference is this: the Reformed view of 2k has the civil magistrate enforcing both tables of the Decalogue, while the neo 2k only has the second table.
> 
> I think all other differences come out of this difference.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...



I guess I am outside the neo-2k view as I don't even believe the magistrate should enforce every application of the second table of the law.


----------



## Cotton Mather

I'm an amillenialist and a 2K advocate. Nevertheless, I echo the sentiments expressed by others in this post. The all pervasive escapism which sometimes manifests itself in the rhetoric of the WHI hosts and others strikes me as a serious aberration from historic Reformed thinking. What I often hear is a stark separation of Christ from politics to the point where men like Kuyper, Schaeffer, and other "neo-Calvinists" are dismissed as theologians of glory. That's part of the reason why I sometimes find it hard to listen to the WHI. I'm convinced that a two-kingdoms theology can coexist along with a strong engagement with the political sphere.


----------



## Casey

Cotton Mather said:


> That's part of the reason why I sometimes find it hard to listen to the WHI.


Ditto.

Is there some way in which your 2K doctrine actually differs from the WHI folk? I mean, is there a reason why you don't come to the same conclusions (such as those mentioned in your post)?


----------



## ZackF

Cotton Mather said:


> I'm an amillenialist and a 2K advocate. Nevertheless, I echo the sentiments expressed by others in this post. The all pervasive escapism which sometimes manifests itself in the rhetoric of the WHI hosts and others strikes me as a serious aberration from historic Reformed thinking. What I often hear is a stark separation of Christ from politics to the point where men like Kuyper, Schaeffer, and other "neo-Calvinists" are dismissed as theologians of glory. That's part of the reason why I sometimes find it hard to listen to the WHI. I'm convinced that a two-kingdoms theology can coexist along with a strong engagement with the political sphere.



That's wierd. I go the other direction with their teachings. The WHI is easy to listen too. The WHI has been boon for me and my relationship to the God (and the state for that matter). I especially found the episodes they did last fall with a Republican and a Democrat, both Reformed, helpful though I am neither myself. Both men were certainly not escapists as they were partisans based in Washington.


----------



## Cotton Mather

I never intended to hands down dismiss the WHI as escapist. I too have been greatly blessed by the program, having listened to it for over 3 years. And I listened to the episode in which the two politicians were interviewed. My beef with the ethos of the WHI is that, quite often, cultural and political engagement of any kind are included among the list of philosophies which constitute the much overused and ambiguous term "theology of glory." Mike Horton seems to commonly criticize any kind of thinking which would include political engagement as an integral part of Christianity. While I'm sure Horton and the other hosts wouldn't advocate a complete separation of God from politics, the rhetorical and often exaggerated rhetoric concerning "cultural transformation" strikes me as theologically sloppy and misleading. 

My 2K theology differs from that of Horton and the WSC crowd because I'm somewhat of a Kuyperian, and believe that while every sphere is relatively sovereign and unique in its own right, every sphere, of Biblical necessity, must be regulated by the moral law. The difference is that I just don't buy into the "natural law" theory as defined and taught by the WSC crowd. Hope that helps?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Cotton Mather said:


> I'm an amillenialist and a 2K advocate. Nevertheless, I echo the sentiments expressed by others in this post. The all pervasive escapism which sometimes manifests itself in the rhetoric of the WHI hosts and others strikes me as a serious aberration from historic Reformed thinking. What I often hear is a stark separation of Christ from politics to the point where men like Kuyper, Schaeffer, and other "neo-Calvinists" are dismissed as theologians of glory. That's part of the reason why I sometimes find it hard to listen to the WHI. I'm convinced that a two-kingdoms theology can coexist along with a strong engagement with the political sphere.



At best I could say that their view on role of the Christian in society is difficult to discern. To classify it as escapist is not convincing to me. The example I've heard them cite repeatedly is Wilbeforce. He was interested in the ministry but encouraged by John Newton that he would be a better "minister" as a legislator. They've even commended the idea that he brought his Christian convictions into that arena to end slavery.

Their show has been focused on criticizing what most would recognize as extreme (or clumsy) attempts by public ministers to focus on cultural transformation while, at the same time, neglecting the Gospel in their own Churches.

Ironically, just yesterday I received an e-mail from a list that I didn't sign up for but they are Marines and other government civilians in the Quantico area who identify themselves as Christians. I don't like the group because it is far too loose with no real Confessional unity. One friend of mine who attends told me of a class one fellow gave at a recent retreat where he spoke about all the spiritual gifts he's received (including prophecy and healing) and how he's working on the remaining gifts. Let's just say I have a low "toleration" for that.

Then, today, I received an e-mail written by a fellow from the C.S. Lewis foundation (or something like that) talking about the disease of toleration. It was certainly true as far as it went that our culture today is infected with the orthodoxy of toleration. What I found myself thinking existentially is all these folks in this group thinking: "Yeah, that's what is wrong with society today - it tolerates so much wickedness...." Indeed the author pointed out how our culture preaches this.

But then the real problem is that this very group is infected with that idea for issues that are even more dire than the fact that the culture tolerates wickedness (after all do we expect a lot less from fallen men). These men and women tolerate heterodoxy in Christian _doctrine_. To them, unity is less important than purity of doctrine. At the same time, however, they find themselves united in their moral outrage at the loose morals of Americans who trample "traditional values".

In other words, what I see far too often is a desire to overcome the wickedness of the culture and too few men who call themselves Christians care about the purity of the Gospel that is supposed to impel men toward that end. Men are willing to abandon purity in the Church for a false sense of unity against the "common enemy", which is all the evil people in the world who tolerate homosexuality and the like. We need not abandon the latter but the Church leads the way in the area of "toleration" and it is the pot calling the kettle black.

This is a long way of saying that I think the WHI critique of the American Church's obsession with cultural transformation is accurate because I see them levying their critique at Church men who care little about purity of doctrine within the Church but yet rail about the purity of men who are not regenerate and, because the Kingdom of Christ has been long neglected in the Church, there is very little true Gospel left to regenerate hearts that transform the culture the way Wilbeforce did.


----------



## Casey

I find the WHI critiques perceptive -- I particularly like it when they interview people at conferences and play the recordings.

But they seem to suggest that anything that doesn't fit their "two kingdoms/law gospel" framework is "theology of glory." At times it seems to me that they get rather close to the idea that if one is actually striving to obey God, then such a person has bought into the "glory story." I'm uncomfortable with the way they tip-toe around the law and rarely refer to its didactic use and almost always to its pedagogical use. Of course the law shows us our sin, but we're supposed to delight in it, too!


----------



## Theognome

Marrow Man said:


> What do you think about the following article by Gary DeMar, which criticizes the two kingdom approach to society?



I think that in regards to modern evangelical Christianity, he has given a very reasonable critique. The problem of over-emphasizing the spiritual realm is not as prominent in Reformed circles (though the exclusive followers of Dr. Kline are an exception to this) but the cause and effect he describes is fairly accurate.

Theognome


----------



## ZackF

Cotton Mather said:


> I never intended to hands down dismiss the WHI as escapist. I too have been greatly blessed by the program, having listened to it for over 3 years. And I listened to the episode in which the two politicians were interviewed. My beef with the ethos of the WHI is that, quite often, cultural and political engagement of any kind are included among the list of philosophies which constitute the much overused and ambiguous term "theology of glory." Mike Horton seems to commonly criticize any kind of thinking which would include political engagement as an integral part of Christianity. While I'm sure Horton and the other hosts wouldn't advocate a complete separation of God from politics, the rhetorical and often exaggerated rhetoric concerning "cultural transformation" strikes me as theologically sloppy and misleading.
> 
> My 2K theology differs from that of Horton and the WSC crowd because I'm somewhat of a Kuyperian, and believe that while every sphere is relatively sovereign and unique in its own right, every sphere, of Biblical necessity, must be regulated by the moral law. The difference is that I just don't buy into the "natural law" theory as defined and taught by the WSC crowd. Hope that helps?



Maybe WHI errs occassionally on the "other side". I dunno. I don't think they have, the past five years anyway, condemned involvement or "engagement" in general. They do condemn people who attempt to bind the conscience of believers to match a certain voting guide, particular types of protests, political party platforms and so forth. Of course I don't fully buy the "every sphere" program either.


----------



## ZackF

Semper Fidelis said:


> Cotton Mather said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an amillenialist and a 2K advocate. Nevertheless, I echo the sentiments expressed by others in this post. The all pervasive escapism which sometimes manifests itself in the rhetoric of the WHI hosts and others strikes me as a serious aberration from historic Reformed thinking. What I often hear is a stark separation of Christ from politics to the point where men like Kuyper, Schaeffer, and other "neo-Calvinists" are dismissed as theologians of glory. That's part of the reason why I sometimes find it hard to listen to the WHI. I'm convinced that a two-kingdoms theology can coexist along with a strong engagement with the political sphere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At best I could say that their view on role of the Christian in society is difficult to discern. To classify it as escapist is not convincing to me. The example I've heard them cite repeatedly is Wilbeforce. He was interested in the ministry but encouraged by John Newton that he would be a better "minister" as a legislator. They've even commended the idea that he brought his Christian convictions into that arena to end slavery.
> 
> Their show has been focused on criticizing what most would recognize as extreme (or clumsy) attempts by public ministers to focus on cultural transformation while, at the same time, neglecting the Gospel in their own Churches.
> 
> Ironically, just yesterday I received an e-mail from a list that I didn't sign up for but they are Marines and other government civilians in the Quantico area who identify themselves as Christians. I don't like the group because it is far too loose with no real Confessional unity. One friend of mine who attends told me of a class one fellow gave at a recent retreat where he spoke about all the spiritual gifts he's received (including prophecy and healing) and how he's working on the remaining gifts. Let's just say I have a low "toleration" for that.
> 
> Then, today, I received an e-mail written by a fellow from the C.S. Lewis foundation (or something like that) talking about the disease of toleration. It was certainly true as far as it went that our culture today is infected with the orthodoxy of toleration. What I found myself thinking existentially is all these folks in this group thinking: "Yeah, that's what is wrong with society today - it tolerates so much wickedness...." Indeed the author pointed out how our culture preaches this.
> 
> But then the real problem is that this very group is infected with that idea for issues that are even more dire than the fact that the culture tolerates wickedness (after all do we expect a lot less from fallen men). These men and women tolerate heterodoxy in Christian _doctrine_. To them, unity is less important than purity of doctrine. At the same time, however, they find themselves united in their moral outrage at the loose morals of Americans who trample "traditional values".
> 
> In other words, what I see far too often is a desire to overcome the wickedness of the culture and too few men who call themselves Christians care about the purity of the Gospel that is supposed to impel men toward that end. Men are willing to abandon purity in the Church for a false sense of unity against the "common enemy", which is all the evil people in the world who tolerate homosexuality and the like. We need not abandon the latter but the Church leads the way in the area of "toleration" and it is the pot calling the kettle black.
> 
> This is a long way of saying that I think the WHI critique of the American Church's obsession with cultural transformation is accurate because I see them levying their critique at Church men who care little about purity of doctrine within the Church but yet rail about the purity of men who are not regenerate and, because the Kingdom of Christ has been long neglected in the Church, there is very little true Gospel left to regenerate hearts that transform the culture the way Wilbeforce did.
Click to expand...


Ditto.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

*Resources for Studying "Two Kingdoms"*

There are a lot of resources on this topic here:

Two kingdoms Heidelblog

The faculty gave a conference on the abiding validity of the moral law. The audio is available for download here:

The Bookstore at WSC: The Law of God and the Christian by WSC Faculty

More here:

Natural Law and Light in the Reformed Confessions Heidelblog

Natural Law, the Two Kingdoms, and Homosexual Marriage Heidelblog

Westminster Seminary California faculty

In Order for Leviathan to Flourish He Must First Kill Natural Law Heidelblog

Resources for Reformed Approaches to Natural Law Heidelblog

The Bookstore at WSC: A Biblical Case for Natural Law by VanDrunen, David M.

As to the alleged "WSC" view of 2 kingdoms and Christian education some of us are a little chastened about the claims made about Christian education but it is false to say that we do not or ought not to believe in Christian education. 

1. Our faculty send their children to the local Christian schools. Some to a Christian school with a classical model and some to the local CSI-style program and others homeschool their children.

2. Some of our faculty are or have served on the board of the local CSI school.

3. Two of our faculty have served on the board at Covenant College.

4.We are all Van Tillians on faculty and we all agree with CVT's critique of epistemic "neutrality." Christ is Lord of all things but he administers his lordship or his kingdom in distinct ways and in distinct institutions. We might call those ways "two kingdoms" or "spheres." Unlike some right-wing neo-Kuyperians we still believe in common grace and Kuyper's distinctions between the spheres. A good bit of what is called "Kuyperian" probably isn't. Yes, I am setting the left- and right-wing neo-Kuyperians against Kuyper.

5. It is important in this discussion to distinguish between ultimate and penultimate issues. Failure to recognize this distinction leads to unnecessary 
confusion. Thus there is a distinctly Christian view of God, man, Christ, salvation, church, sacraments, and last things (ultimate issues). This means that the meaning or significance of penultimate matters (e.g. math) is determined by God's revelation but that is not the same thing as saying that there is a distinctly "Christian" math. The jump from the ultimate to the penultimate is more difficult than some seem to think.

6. There is no question that there is a distinctly Christian world view (see the link above where I wrote three long-ish posts on this) but a distinctly Christian world view does not translate easily into distinctly and logically "Christian" public policy positions on every issue. 

7. How this constitutes a retreat from the culture or pietism escapes me entirely. Anyone who calls me a pietist is, as they say on public radio, "itching for a fight." Anyone who calls me a pietist is ignorant of the history of pietism and certainly ignorant of my rather extensive critique of it in _Recovering the Reformed Confession_.


----------



## mvdm

Here's an enlightening resource containing 154 posts dissecting the WSC version of 2k:

Iron Ink - Category: R2Kt virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology) 

Read them all.


----------



## jetbrane

*Polemics, and Lost Interest in Rev. McAtee*



whitway said:


> If Bret McAtee weren't so polemic I might read a few of his posts but having known him online for at least a decade he has unfortunately lost my interest.



Wayne,

You are exaggerating by about 1/2 a decade concerning knowing me online, but that is understandable since time with me just flies.

Believe me, my polemics are kindergarten stuff compared to others I have interacted with on the subject at hand.

I'm getting inundated with hits Wayne. I guess people want to find out for themselves.


----------



## mvdm

whitway said:


> If Bret McAtee weren't so polemic I might read a few of his posts but having known him online for at least a decade he has unfortunately lost my interest.



Well, hopefully others will read him, because on this topic, he very skillfully exposes the root errors. But I recognize that not everyone has the stomach to witness a vivisection.


----------



## ww

Bret and Mark,

Have no issues with folks wanting to find out for themselves as I am only stating my opinion based on my experience over the years and the number of years as referenced is debatable but in the very least five. In any event I have deleted my post. 

Have a Great Evening Gentleman!


----------



## Theognome

*Why not three?*

The household (family) is also a defined government in God's word. Is it not odd that this government isn't given much ink in the modern age? Shouldn't this really be a three-kingdom argument?

Theognome


----------



## R. Scott Clark

That's why Kuyper distinguished between three basic spheres: family, church, and state. 

Althusius made the family the basic social unit. Here's a brief intro:

In Order for Leviathan to Flourish He Must First Kill Natural Law Heidelblog


----------



## Theognome

R. Scott Clark said:


> That's why Kuyper distinguished between three basic spheres: family, church, and state.
> 
> Althusius made the family the basic social unit. Here's a brief intro:
> 
> In Order for Leviathan to Flourish He Must First Kill Natural Law Heidelblog





from article said:


> The most enduring part of the argument by resistance theorists was their appeal to divinely-revealed, transcendent norms to which the magistrate and the governed are bound. They understood that the civil order is not a covenant of grace but a covenant of works. This is a distinction that has been lost on both the religious right and left who, in their monocovenantal politics, seem to be bent on making the civil order a covenant of grace and thence to achieve their utopia of Christian-Democratic Socialism or a “Christian-Republican America.”



I'm familiar with Kuyper's work. As for the article, I think it starts a point, but never reaches it. The declination of the family as a true government within today's Church was (In my ignorant opinion) born of Marxist doctrine as opposed to that of the enlightenment. Individual empowerment- the government of self as unto the whole was critical to this movement, expesially in the Marxist idea of the role of women in familial government; as expressed succinctly in the works of Engels.

Theognome


----------



## MW

R. Scott Clark said:


> In Order for Leviathan to Flourish He Must First Kill Natural Law Heidelblog



The post states:



> In the early 1570s, Theodore Beza would write Concerning the Right of Magistrates to be followed by the anonymously written, Vindication Against Tyrants among other seminal resistance-theory texts. These two texts did not rely only on natural law. They also appealed to the history of redemption and conveniently blurred the line between national Israel and the 16th-century state.



One wonders how a Calvinist who believes in the noetic effects of sin is able to appeal to natural law without also appealing to the history of redemption which provides the clearest teaching of that law. That there is one true God who is to be worshipped and served is clearly taught by the light of nature (WCF 21:1), so there is no reason why a modern advocate of natural law should not agree with 16th century advocates that the State is bound to worship and serve the one true God, unless of course he denies what the light of nature teaches.


----------



## ZackF

armourbearer said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Order for Leviathan to Flourish He Must First Kill Natural Law Heidelblog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The post states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the early 1570s, Theodore Beza would write Concerning the Right of Magistrates to be followed by the anonymously written, Vindication Against Tyrants among other seminal resistance-theory texts. These two texts did not rely only on natural law. They also appealed to the history of redemption and conveniently blurred the line between national Israel and the 16th-century state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One wonders how a Calvinist who believes in the noetic effects of sin is able to appeal to natural law without also appealing to the history of redemption which provides the clearest teaching of that law. That there is one true God who is to be worshipped and served is clearly taught by the light of nature (WCF 21:1), so there is no reason why a modern advocate of natural law should not agree with 16th century advocates _*that the State is bound to worship and serve the one true God,*_ unless of course he denies what the light of nature teaches.
Click to expand...


Emphasis mine. How does the State worship God? What would that look like?


----------



## MW

KS_Presby said:


> Emphasis mine. How does the State worship God? What would that look like?



Historically it included recognition of the one true God and laws forbidding public worship of any other god.


----------



## mvdm

> One wonders how a Calvinist who believes in the noetic effects of sin is able to appeal to natural law without also appealing to the history of redemption which provides the clearest teaching of that law. That there is one true God who is to be worshipped and served is clearly taught by the light of nature (WCF 21:1), so there is no reason why a modern advocate of natural law should not agree with 16th century advocates that the State is bound to worship and serve the one true God, unless of course he denies what the light of nature teaches.



=========================================================
One wonders indeed--considering in addition the Canons of Dort confession that the natural light that remains in unregenerate man is insufficient to order things aright, even in things "natural and civil".

Clark's fellow 2ker, Lee Irons, exposes Clark's dilemma in arguing for natural law as the standard for the magistrate:

http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?cat=88


----------



## jetbrane

mvdm said:


> One wonders how a Calvinist who believes in the noetic effects of sin is able to appeal to natural law without also appealing to the history of redemption which provides the clearest teaching of that law. That there is one true God who is to be worshipped and served is clearly taught by the light of nature (WCF 21:1), so there is no reason why a modern advocate of natural law should not agree with 16th century advocates that the State is bound to worship and serve the one true God, unless of course he denies what the light of nature teaches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =========================================================
> One wonders indeed--considering in addition the Canons of Dort confession that the natural light that remains in unregenerate man is insufficient to order things aright, even in things "natural and civil".
> 
> Clark's fellow 2ker, Lee Irons, exposes Clark's dilemma in arguing for natural law as the standard for the magistrate:
> 
> The Upper Register Blog Natural Law
Click to expand...


Good night ... what are we ever to do if the leading spokesman for R2Kt can't agree among themselves what Natural Law teaches? If the experts can't agree how will us lesser mortals ever come to a consensus on what Natural law "clearly teaches?"

But let us ask ourselves why do Irons and Clark disagree on what Natural Law teaches on this subject? The answer obviously is not that Natural law is unclear about this subject but rather that their presuppositions differ about the subject at hand and so their conclusions about what Natural law teaches on the subject vary significantly. 

This, of course, is the ongoing problem with natural law theories. They propagate like rabbits on Viagra because each man can explain the details of his or her natural law theory according to what is right in their own eyes.

No one can doubt that Natural law was appealed to by men like Calvin, Rutherford, and Philippe Duplessis-Mornay, but one has to take into account that such appeals could only find traction because they were developed within the context of Christendom. As such there already existed a cultural consensus that natural law conclusions could appeal to, even if they didn't consciously attempt to do so.

But what shall we expect of Natural law theories that spring up in a culture where decreasingly there is nothing like a pre-existent cultural consensus? Well, we should expect that each sub-culture that is striving for cultural hegemony will each have their own version of Natural Law that they expect all other sub-cultures to recognize. Clearly this must be recognized as truth if even Dr. Clark and Dr. Irons can't agree on what Natural Law teaches.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'll be honest with all of you, I don't like these threads because they bring out the party spirit that Durham notes is common in violations of the 9th Commandment. Are there differences and nuances in views on the 2K view? Yes. What I detect however is a willingness to depict any 2K view that differs from one's own as akin to an Anabaptist retreat from all contact with society.

One of the reasons people on either extreme of this issue end up leaving this board or being shown the door is because they can only paint another's view in the worst possible light. What really disturbs me as well are those that come out of the woodworks when these topics come up. Nary a word on other doctrinal issues but 2K comes up and it's an opportunity to dump all over the 2K views of others and "sloganize" about how the view leads to every vice including tooth decay and bad breath.

Those that have axes to grind, go grind them somewhere else. I want sober discussions of the subject here because the real issue is lost in all the dust that's kicked up with labels of escapism and the like. Frankly, I have little respect for people that can only engage in polemics that consist of sound bites with no acknowledgement of the reasons why those perspectives are held and a response to the strongest arguments therein.


----------



## chbrooking

jetbrane said:


> They propagate like rabbits on Viagra


----------



## ChristianTrader

armourbearer said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Order for Leviathan to Flourish He Must First Kill Natural Law Heidelblog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The post states:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the early 1570s, Theodore Beza would write Concerning the Right of Magistrates to be followed by the anonymously written, Vindication Against Tyrants among other seminal resistance-theory texts. These two texts did not rely only on natural law. They also appealed to the history of redemption and conveniently blurred the line between national Israel and the 16th-century state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One wonders how a Calvinist who believes in the noetic effects of sin is able to appeal to natural law without also appealing to the history of redemption which provides the clearest teaching of that law. That there is one true God who is to be worshipped and served is clearly taught by the light of nature (WCF 21:1), *so there is no reason why a modern advocate of natural law should not agree with 16th century advocates that the State is bound to worship and serve the one true God, unless of course he denies what the light of nature teaches*.
Click to expand...


I think the bolded part is key. If one believes that the light of nature teaches that there is one true God, then to have to civil magistrate avoid enforcing or ruling in accordance with this, would be akin to having the civil magistrate attempting to be neutral towards 1+1=2.

CT


----------



## MW

ChristianTrader said:


> would be akin to having the civil magistrate attempting to be neutral towards 1+1=2.



If the magistrate believed 1+1=3 with respect to tax payments it would cause quite an uproar.


----------



## ZackF

armourbearer said:


> KS_Presby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Emphasis mine. How does the State worship God? What would that look like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically it included recognition of the one true God and laws forbidding public worship of any other god.
Click to expand...


Instead what we had was the Roman and Anglican church forbidding public worship of the one true God.


----------



## MW

KS_Presby said:


> Instead what we had was the Roman and Anglican church forbidding public worship of the one true God.



Abuse of a principle does not legitimate disuse.


----------



## mvdm

armourbearer said:


> Abuse of a principle does not legitimate disuse.



Rev. Winzer's statement here zeroes in on what I think is going on with 
the R2kt proponents.

It appears to me that they are overreacting to the abuse of certain principles. For example:

1. Theonomy _per se_ is an irrefutable principle. God's law is supreme over all of life. As CVT said, it's "either theonomy or autonomy". 

The abuse of this theonomy principle can be found in Christian Reconstructionism. 

The R2kt overreaction contends that God's revealed law is to govern the church only, and that the magistrate in the so-called "common realm" is to be governed by appeals to natural law only, i.e, it is inappropriate to appeal to special revelation to inform the magistrate on public policy. 

2. That the gospel transforms us into new creatures subjecting all of our life to Christ's rule is an irrefutable principle. 

The abuse of this transformation principle can be found in certain brands of neo-kuyperian transformationalism, such that it has become indistinguishable from the "social gospel".

The WSC-2k overreaction is to contend that outside the church, there is no essential difference between what the believer or the unbeliever does in living life, e.g., in vocation, in education, etc. The extension of God's kingdom is essentially equivalent with what is found in the visible church.


----------



## ww

mvdm said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abuse of a principle does not legitimate disuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer's statement here zeroes in on what I think is going on with
> the R2kt proponents.
> 
> It appears to me that they are overreacting to the abuse of certain principles. For example:
> 
> 1. Theonomy _per se_ is an irrefutable principle. God's law is supreme over all of life. As CVT said, it's "either theonomy or autonomy".
> 
> The abuse of this theonomy principle can be found in Christian Reconstructionism.
> 
> The R2kt overreaction contends that God's revealed law is to govern the church only, and that the magistrate in the so-called "common realm" is to be governed by appeals to natural law only, i.e, it is inappropriate to appeal to special revelation to inform the magistrate on public policy.
> 
> 2. That the gospel transforms us into new creatures subjecting all of our life to Christ's rule is an irrefutable principle.
> 
> The abuse of this transformation principle can be found in certain brands of neo-kuyperian transformationalism, such that it has become indistinguishable from the "social gospel".
> 
> The WSC-2k overreaction is to contend that outside the church, there is no essential difference between what the believer or the unbeliever does in living life, e.g., in vocation, in education, etc. The extension of God's kingdom is essentially equivalent with what is found in the visible church.
Click to expand...


What I find concerning is that you resort to R2kt nomenclature (which refers to those who embrace Two Kingdom Theology as having contracted a virus) because YOU don't agree with it. From my vantage point Two Kingdom Theology is a distrinction that Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers embraced. Just because it doesn't fit into your view doesn't make it radical. I appreciate you calling out the abuses but at that same time it doesn't make the foundational principles of theonomony and transformationalism any more accurate. And if you are heartily recommending the site you shared with us I would have to say you aren't as "balanced" as you want to purport in this thread.

-----Added 5/16/2009 at 11:02:21 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> KS_Presby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead what we had was the Roman and Anglican church forbidding public worship of the one true God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abuse of a principle does not legitimate disuse.
Click to expand...


Let's face it Theocracy which Theonomy is in its basic form minus God being the Ruler instead having Civil Magistrates rule didn't work in Israel how much more so in America or any other Nation.

-----Added 5/16/2009 at 11:12:48 EST-----



jetbrane said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One wonders how a Calvinist who believes in the noetic effects of sin is able to appeal to natural law without also appealing to the history of redemption which provides the clearest teaching of that law. That there is one true God who is to be worshipped and served is clearly taught by the light of nature (WCF 21:1), so there is no reason why a modern advocate of natural law should not agree with 16th century advocates that the State is bound to worship and serve the one true God, unless of course he denies what the light of nature teaches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =========================================================
> One wonders indeed--considering in addition the Canons of Dort confession that the natural light that remains in unregenerate man is insufficient to order things aright, even in things "natural and civil".
> 
> Clark's fellow 2ker, Lee Irons, exposes Clark's dilemma in arguing for natural law as the standard for the magistrate:
> 
> The Upper Register Blog Natural Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good night ... what are we ever to do if the leading spokesman for R2Kt can't agree among themselves what Natural Law teaches? If the experts can't agree how will us lesser mortals ever come to a consensus on what Natural law "clearly teaches?"
> 
> But let us ask ourselves why do Irons and Clark disagree on what Natural Law teaches on this subject? The answer obviously is not that Natural law is unclear about this subject but rather that their presuppositions differ about the subject at hand and so their conclusions about what Natural law teaches on the subject vary significantly.
> 
> This, of course, is the ongoing problem with natural law theories. They propagate like rabbits on Viagra because each man can explain the details of his or her natural law theory according to what is right in their own eyes.
> 
> No one can doubt that Natural law was appealed to by men like Calvin, Rutherford, and Philippe Duplessis-Mornay, but one has to take into account that such appeals could only find traction because they were developed within the context of Christendom. As such there already existed a cultural consensus that natural law conclusions could appeal to, even if they didn't consciously attempt to do so.
> 
> But what shall we expect of Natural law theories that spring up in a culture where decreasingly there is nothing like a pre-existent cultural consensus? Well, we should expect that each sub-culture that is striving for cultural hegemony will each have their own version of Natural Law that they expect all other sub-cultures to recognize. Clearly this must be recognized as truth if even Dr. Clark and Dr. Irons can't agree on what Natural Law teaches.
Click to expand...



Good grief Theonomist like North, Bahnsen, Rushdoony, and others have all had various disagreements over how to apply "Theonomy" in America and not share with us in all instances what Theonomy "clearly teaches", to say they were likeminded would be naive. Natural Law and Two Kingdom advocates certainly do not agree on everything just as Theonomist. I would say that Natural Law as given by God in General Revelation even works in uncivilized tribes in the deepest parts of Africa because in many instances their government is structured around what is written in their hearts which is God's Law to the point that Romans 1:18-20 says they are without excuse.


----------



## ZackF

Maybe it is Christian Reconstructionism that most of us (2Kers) are afraid of? Perhaps a thread on that is what we need?


----------



## ww

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'll be honest with all of you, I don't like these threads because they bring out the party spirit that Durham notes is common in violations of the 9th Commandment. Are there differences and nuances in views on the 2K view? Yes. What I detect however is a willingness to depict any 2K view that differs from one's own as akin to an Anabaptist retreat from all contact with society.
> 
> One of the reasons people on either extreme of this issue end up leaving this board or being shown the door is because they can only paint another's view in the worst possible light. What really disturbs me as well are those that come out of the woodworks when these topics come up. Nary a word on other doctrinal issues but 2K comes up and it's an opportunity to dump all over the 2K views of others and "sloganize" about how the view leads to every vice including tooth decay and bad breath.
> 
> Those that have axes to grind, go grind them somewhere else. I want sober discussions of the subject here because the real issue is lost in all the dust that's kicked up with labels of escapism and the like. Frankly, I have little respect for people that can only engage in polemics that consist of sound bites with no acknowledgement of the reasons why those perspectives are held and a response to the strongest arguments therein.



 And as an active Member of this board on a variety of topics if you find that either my posts as of late or my blog that I just created and linked to my signature focus on Two Kingdom Theology it is because I'm rather "NEW" to the vantage point and find it helpful to either discuss it here on PB or express it on my Blog. If you find that I seem rather direct in my language it is because I'm finding unfortunately for some I've contracted a virus in need of a cure which I find very insulting.  

With that said I definitely do not want to become a One Tune Dude as there are so many other nuances of the Reformed Faith that I enjoy and so many other doctrines that we all hold in common. Thank You for this gentle but effective rebuke brother.


----------



## Casey

Are there any thorough critiques of the natural-law/two-kingdoms doctrine (of the WSC type or others) in print?


----------



## ChristianTrader

mvdm said:


> The WSC-2k overreaction is to contend that outside the church, there is no essential difference between what the believer or the unbeliever does in living life, e.g., in vocation, in education, etc. The extension of God's kingdom is essentially equivalent with what is found in the visible church.



I pretty much agree that there is no essential distinction, the issue is does that mean Christians should "slow down" or the heathens should "catch up"?

CT

-----Added 5/16/2009 at 03:43:45 EST-----



KS_Presby said:


> Maybe it is Christian Reconstructionism that most of us (2Kers) are afraid of? Perhaps a thread on that is what we need?



That you are afraid does not imply that what you are afraid of is worthy to be feared.

CT

-----Added 5/16/2009 at 03:47:46 EST-----



whitway said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abuse of a principle does not legitimate disuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer's statement here zeroes in on what I think is going on with
> the R2kt proponents.
> 
> It appears to me that they are overreacting to the abuse of certain principles. For example:
> 
> 1. Theonomy _per se_ is an irrefutable principle. God's law is supreme over all of life. As CVT said, it's "either theonomy or autonomy".
> 
> The abuse of this theonomy principle can be found in Christian Reconstructionism.
> 
> The R2kt overreaction contends that God's revealed law is to govern the church only, and that the magistrate in the so-called "common realm" is to be governed by appeals to natural law only, i.e, it is inappropriate to appeal to special revelation to inform the magistrate on public policy.
> 
> 2. That the gospel transforms us into new creatures subjecting all of our life to Christ's rule is an irrefutable principle.
> 
> The abuse of this transformation principle can be found in certain brands of neo-kuyperian transformationalism, such that it has become indistinguishable from the "social gospel".
> 
> The WSC-2k overreaction is to contend that outside the church, there is no essential difference between what the believer or the unbeliever does in living life, e.g., in vocation, in education, etc. The extension of God's kingdom is essentially equivalent with what is found in the visible church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I find concerning is that you resort to R2kt nomenclature (which refers to those who embrace Two Kingdom Theology as having contracted a virus) because YOU don't agree with it. From my vantage point Two Kingdom Theology is a distrinction that Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers embraced. Just because it doesn't fit into your view doesn't make it radical. I appreciate you calling out the abuses but at that same time it doesn't make the foundational principles of theonomony and transformationalism any more accurate. And if you are heartily recommending the site you shared with us I would have to say you aren't as "balanced" as you want to purport in this thread.
Click to expand...


Um, we have already clearly established that there is an old and new form of Two Kingdom theology. If you are going to be defending or asserting the new form, you then have no right to claim those who defended the old form as your fore bearers.

CT


----------



## ww

> Um, we have already clearly established that there is an old and new form of Two Kingdom theology. If you are going to be defending or asserting the new form, you then have no right to claim those who defended the old form as your fore bearers.
> 
> CT




I sure can. Regardless of whether the application of their Two Kingdom Theology was in line with their orthodoxy or not doesn't make my view any less within the Reformed Tradition. I'll leave you with a quote by Calvin on Two Kingdom Theology that I wholeheartedly embrace along with a quote by Christ Himself. 



> From the 1559 Institutes 3.19.15 (Battles edition)
> 
> Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone, let us first consider that there is a twofold government in man (duplex esse in homine regimen): one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually called the “spiritual” and the “temporal” jurisdiction (not improper terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life—not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately. For the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter regulates only outward behavior. The one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority.





> Luke 12: 13-14: Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?”



Christ had more productive things to do with his time then to seek to rule on Civil matters left up to Caesar.


----------



## ChristianTrader

whitway said:


> Um, we have already clearly established that there is an old and new form of Two Kingdom theology. If you are going to be defending or asserting the new form, you then have no right to claim those who defended the old form as your fore bearers.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure can. Regardless of whether the application of their Two Kingdom Theology was in line with their orthodoxy or not doesn't make my view any less within the Reformed Tradition. I'll leave you with a quote by Calvin on Two Kingdom Theology that I wholeheartedly embrace along with a quote by Christ Himself.
Click to expand...


If it is not in accordance with the Reformers then where in the tradition is it to be found? Anabaptists?

If it is clear to nature that there is one true God, how in the world is the civil magistrate going to be able to be neutral towards the worshipping of gods that the light of nature says is nonsense?



> From the 1559 Institutes 3.19.15 (Battles edition)
> 
> Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone, let us first consider that there is a twofold government in man (duplex esse in homine regimen): one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually called the “spiritual” and the “temporal” jurisdiction (not improper terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life—not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately. For the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter regulates only outward behavior. The one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luke 12: 13-14: Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ had more productive things to do with his time then to seek to rule on Civil matters left up to Caesar.
Click to expand...


From these quotes, you see Christ and Calvin defending that the civil magistrate should only enforce the second table?

John the Baptist should have kept his mouth shut about Herod taking his brother's wife.

And the next time someone talks about the million plus unborn legally murdered a year, your response is/should be "Caesar is doing Caesar's business".

CT


----------



## ww

ChristianTrader said:


> whitway said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, we have already clearly established that there is an old and new form of Two Kingdom theology. If you are going to be defending or asserting the new form, you then have no right to claim those who defended the old form as your fore bearers.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I sure can. Regardless of whether the application of their Two Kingdom Theology was in line with their orthodoxy or not doesn't make my view any less within the Reformed Tradition. I'll leave you with a quote by Calvin on Two Kingdom Theology that I wholeheartedly embrace along with a quote by Christ Himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is not in accordance with the Reformers then where in the tradition is it to be found? Anabaptists?
> 
> If it is clear to nature that there is one true God, how in the world is the civil magistrate going to be able to be neutral towards the worshipping of gods that the light of nature says is nonsense?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luke 12: 13-14: Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ had more productive things to do with his time then to seek to rule on Civil matters left up to Caesar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From these quotes, you see Christ and Calvin defending that the civil magistrate should only enforce the second table?
> 
> John the Baptist should have kept his mouth shut about Herod taking his brother's wife.
> 
> And the next time someone talks about the million plus unborn legally murdered a year, your response is/should be "Caesar is doing Caesar's business".
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Anabaptist? I'm done!


----------

