# Two Kingdoms (again)



## Jose Rodriguez (Jun 9, 2014)

Greetings to all,

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jun 9, 2014)

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


----------



## One Little Nail (Jun 9, 2014)

Dearly Bought said:


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



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


----------



## ZackF (Jun 9, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


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



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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 10, 2014)

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

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

Hopefully Mark Van Der Molen will help us out here.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 10, 2014)

KS_Presby said:


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



Is this better Zack? LOL

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

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

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


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


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


----------



## mvdm (Jun 10, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> *“Two kingdoms” propositions with some responses or counterpoints....*
> 
> "Two kingdoms" propositions with some responses or counterpoints | RPCNA Covenanter
> 
> Hopefully Mark Van Der Molen will help us out here.



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


----------



## ZackF (Jun 10, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


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



That was longer than 2-3 sentences.


----------



## MW (Jun 10, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


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



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


----------



## One Little Nail (Jun 11, 2014)

armourbearer said:


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




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

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

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

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


----------



## MW (Jun 11, 2014)

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

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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 12, 2014)

Dearly Bought said:


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



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


----------



## Andres (Jun 12, 2014)

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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 12, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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



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

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


----------



## mvdm (Jun 12, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> largely a family feud between different strands of Voluntaryism.



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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


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



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



PuritanCovenanter said:


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



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

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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2014)

mvdm said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > largely a family feud between different strands of Voluntaryism.
> ...



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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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



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


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 13, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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



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


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 13, 2014)

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

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

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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 13, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


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



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




PuritanCovenanter said:


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



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




PuritanCovenanter said:


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



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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


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



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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 13, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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



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

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


----------



## earl40 (Jun 13, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The pithiness of the comments in this discussion is very helpful; still, the apparent complexity of this discussion still daunts me.
> 
> Daniel, you have rightly pointed out a prime issue: "whether the state should recognise homosexual marriage". But what happens when the state _*has*_ recognized it, a fait accompli? At that point is not all we can do – even while testifying to the eternal standard of God's law violated – to say, "You may have framed this unjust law in opposition to the King of Heaven and earth, but _within_ the precincts of His Kingdom rule in the church your law is null and void, utterly unrecognized, and we shall proceed so"?
> 
> The field of the world may be taken by the god of this world, but the kingdom not of this world, and its manifestation here, can never be taken, not even over our dead bodies.



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


----------



## mvdm (Jun 13, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> > Reformed Covenanter said:
> ...



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


----------



## mvdm (Jun 13, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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



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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2014)

mvdm said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## mvdm (Jun 13, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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



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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2014)

mvdm said:


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



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

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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 13, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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



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




> 1Co 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
> 
> (1Co 15:2) and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## mvdm (Jun 13, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> but I do not feel the need to dismiss everything the neo-2Kers say or do just because I disagree with them on the issue of Christian magistracy (okay, and other things as well).



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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


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



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



PuritanCovenanter said:


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



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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 13, 2014)

Jose Rodriguez said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 13, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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


Well said Daniel.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 13, 2014)

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


----------



## ReverendJim (Jun 13, 2014)

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


----------



## Jose Rodriguez (Jun 13, 2014)

Daniel, 

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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 13, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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



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


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 14, 2014)

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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 14, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


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



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

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

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


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


----------



## Dearly Bought (Jun 14, 2014)

Puritan Sailor said:


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



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


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 14, 2014)

Puritan Sailor said:


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



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

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

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


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jun 14, 2014)

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

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


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2014)

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

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


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> That's helpful to me, Patrick. Bryan, even in the land of promise Israel looked for "a better country, that is, an heavenly" – as per their patriarch, Abraham.
> 
> What is perplexing about this topic to me is that there are so many different views, both re 2K and "orthodox"!



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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 14, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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



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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 14, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


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



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




PuritanCovenanter said:


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



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


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 14, 2014)

Peairtach said:


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



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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 14, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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



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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 14, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


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



I think we can both agree on that. Thanks.



PuritanCovenanter said:


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



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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 14, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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



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



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



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


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 14, 2014)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > Puritan Sailor said:
> ...



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

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

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


----------



## mvdm (Jun 15, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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



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


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 15, 2014)

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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 15, 2014)

mvdm said:


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



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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 15, 2014)

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


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 15, 2014)

mvdm said:


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



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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 15, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


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



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


----------



## KMK (Jun 15, 2014)

Reformed Covenanter said:


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



From the blog:



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



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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 16, 2014)

KMK said:


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



While I agree with this sentiment there needs to be a balance of recognition that these doctrines effect some of these areas you are concerned about. There is a balance. Orthodoxy leads to Orthopraxy. As I noted earlier, a Pastor friend of mine who does what you are calling grunt work was asked to go pray for a City Counsel meeting and was challenged by one of his fellows to consider if he was mixing the two kingdoms. You would be surprised who those people were.


----------



## The Baptist (Jun 16, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> OH I See, so basically it's the old american error invented at the foundation of their republic



Ooo. I wanna know what this error was.


----------



## jandrusk (Jun 16, 2014)

It would be interesting for someone to apply the Two Kingdom strategy to the concept if "Hitler had won WW II". The Moral Law for the secular society is not sufficient to rule righteously due to the corruption of human nature. History is full of examples of this and I don't see how they can reconcile this.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 16, 2014)

jandrusk said:


> It would be interesting for someone to apply the Two Kingdom strategy to the concept if "Hitler had won WW II". The Moral Law for the secular society is not sufficient to rule righteously due to the corruption of human nature. History is full of examples of this and I don't see how they can reconcile this.



Might not actually change that much. The Church--aside from the Vatican--doesn't have an army so they couldn't have opposed Hitler on that point. If the Nazis (Or others) wanted us to participate in putting Jews (or Japanese Americans) into Concentration Camps, then a 2K advocate could have resisted via natural law and in the sphere of civil righteousness. Not a perfect answer, but one that has Reformed precedent. Further, and with the exception of the White Horse Inn, maybe, few 2K advocates advance full quietism in the pulpit. If all the 2K advocates are saying is that the Church shouldn't waste valuable gospel rallying the masses at City Hall, then I agree.


----------



## mvdm (Jun 17, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> If all the 2K advocates are saying is that the Church shouldn't waste valuable gospel rallying the masses at City Hall, then I agree.



But of course, they are saying much more than that.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 17, 2014)

One of the problems in the whole discussion is that there are a lot of assumptions made in ignorance, especially when it comes to establishmentarianism.

For example, the Establishment position when it comes to the day-to-day operations of the church looks a lot more like the "Spirituality of the Church" position than not. The State does what it is supposed to do and the Church does what it is called to do. WCF 23 and 25 (in the 1646 confession) is pretty clear here I think.


----------



## MW (Jun 17, 2014)

The land/exile difference is not going to work because the American revision still allows for the legal recognition of religion even if it excludes a specific denomination.

The term "voluntary" seems to be misused in this thread when it is made to apply to principled pluralism. Voluntarists simply believe that the church should be supported by voluntary giving as opposed to civil endowment. Endowment and establishment are two different things, as many of the establishmentarians pointed out during the Voluntarist controversy in Scotland in the nineteenth century.


----------

