# Clarifying R-2k, 2k, and Spirituality of the Church views



## Romans922 (Mar 11, 2010)

Lately, I have seen online a great deal of talking about different views of the kingdom (R2k [radical 2k], 2K [2 Kingdom], and spirituality of the church).

Could anyone please help in defining these terms more specifically than what I have and describe your view?

Also, maybe this should be a different thread, but what is your view of the KoG and the Church? Should they be seen as the same or different or one existing in another?


----------



## Skyler (Mar 11, 2010)

I assume R2K refers to the Anabaptist concept of two kingdoms, as opposed to Luther's?

That being the case, here's my understanding.

R2K: There are two kingdoms, the Kingdom of Man (or kingdoms of men) and the Kingdom of God. One is either part of the KoM or the KoG; he cannot be both. They typically use "Kingdom of Man" and "kingdoms of men" interchangeably, reflecting the Anabaptist reluctance for governmental involvement.

2K: There are two kingdoms, the Kingdom of Man and the Kingdom of God. The unregenerate person is part of the KoM alone, while the Christian has a dual citizenship in both. The KoM includes such things as politics and business, while the KoG includes evangelism and other ministries.

Oddly, many who hold to the R2K view also claim to adhere to the 2K view as well, at least to some extent. I'm not sure how they reconcile that, aside from redefining the 2K view to suit their needs.

I'm not sure what you mean by "spirituality of the church".

I haven't reached a position on this yet, so I can't help you there. Sorry.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 11, 2010)

Here’s the way I differentiate 2K from R2K. It has to do with the answer to the question: Does the civil magistrate, as a minister of God, have the duty to legislate and punish crimes based on all Ten Commandments, or just on some subset of the Ten Commandments? 

John Calvin’s view -- civil law based on explicit conformity to all Ten Commandments -- would be typical of the historical Reformed 2K position. It is the position of the original Westminster and Belgic Confessions.


----------



## jetbrane (Mar 12, 2010)

*The "R" in R2Kt*

The “radical” in Radical two Kingdom theology is found in the reality that the R2Kt folks deny that the church has any role in advising the state, or that the state has any role in protecting the church. Their vision is one where the state is responsible to God to make sure that no church, faith, or religion becomes ascendant in the culture. For the R2Kt guys God desires that His way and rule never become THE way or rule. Instead what God wants in the Radical Two Kingdom arrangement is that the state keeps all the gods, including Himself, on a level playing field. In short, God turns over His sovereignty to the state to make sure that the state does not allow Him to be God.

So, in the R2Kt vision there remains a theocracy. However it is a much different schematic. The God at the top is a God who desires to not be God. Directly beneath Him is the state who is ruling as Christ in this system. The State, operating as God’s mediatoral King, in the common realm, is charged with pursuing the pluralism that God desires to be maintained. Directly beneath the state are all the different faiths, churches, and religions, that God desires to be maintained in His quest for pluralistic Nirvana. The state is the King that God has set on His Holy Hill in order to insure that no god including Himself becomes ascendant.


----------



## Casey (Mar 12, 2010)

In addition to what has already been said, maybe this will help clarify: The Terminological Problem of “The” Two Kingdoms


----------



## lynnie (Mar 12, 2010)

Just for me to mentally sort this out, what exactly would David Van Drunen be (he is typical of WSC, right?) and would a lot of more "moderates" be something else, like say John Frame? Is DvD/WSC R2k....but Calvin and the confessions are 2k?

The reason I am wondering is that I like Horton but I listened to his White Horse Inn tapes on two kingdoms and it is the first time I ever thought he was way off base, it seemed so extreme. My pastor said he was speaking to typical evangelicalism where being Christian in the USA is being republican and being all into politics, so maybe I didn't quite get his perspective. But is he R2k?


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 12, 2010)

lynnie said:


> Just for me to mentally sort this out, what exactly would David Van Drunen be (he is typical of WSC, right?) and would a lot of more "moderates" be something else, like say John Frame? Is DvD/WSC R2k....but Calvin and the confessions are 2k?
> 
> The reason I am wondering is that I like Horton but I listened to his White Horse Inn tapes on two kingdoms and it is the first time I ever thought he was way off base, it seemed so extreme. My pastor said he was speaking to typical evangelicalism where being Christian in the USA is being republican and being all into politics, so maybe I didn't quite get his perspective. But is he R2k?


 
I have heard that all (which means many maybe) at WSC are R2k. Just saying what I've heard.


----------



## mvdm (Mar 12, 2010)

lynnie said:


> Just for me to mentally sort this out, what exactly would David Van Drunen be (he is typical of WSC, right?) and would a lot of more "moderates" be something else, like say John Frame? Is DvD/WSC R2k....but Calvin and the confessions are 2k?
> 
> The reason I am wondering is that I like Horton but I listened to his White Horse Inn tapes on two kingdoms and it is the first time I ever thought he was way off base, it seemed so extreme. My pastor said he was speaking to typical evangelicalism where being Christian in the USA is being republican and being all into politics, so maybe I didn't quite get his perspective. But is he R2k?



Yes, he is a chief advocate of "R2kt". 

Here's a pertinent Horton article if you'd like to compare it with the WHI audio you heard:

How the Kingdom Comes | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

As for Van Drunen, you can listen to his inaugural lecture which lays out the R2kt "dual ethic" quite clearly:

http://www.netfilehost.com/wscal/WSC_Events/08.02.19.VanDrunen_Inauguration.mp3


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Mar 12, 2010)

Calvin, _Institutes_ IV:XX:9:

The duty of magistrates, its nature, as described by the word of God, and the things in which it consists, I will here indicate in passing. That it extends to both tables of the law, did Scripture not teach, we might learn from profane writers; for no man has discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the common weal, without beginning with religion and divine worship. Thus all have confessed that no polity can be successfully established unless piety be its first care, and that those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men. Seeing then that among philosophers religion holds the first place, and that the same thing has always been observed with the universal consent of nations, Christian princes and magistrates may be ashamed of their heartlessness if they make it not their care. We have already shown that this office is specially assigned them by God, and indeed it is right that they exert themselves in asserting and defending the honour of him whose vicegerents they are, and by whose favour they rule. Hence in Scripture holy kings are especially praised for restoring the worship of God when corrupted or overthrown, or for taking care that religion flourished under them in purity and safety. On the other hand, the sacred history sets down anarchy among the vices, when it states that there was no king in Israel, and, therefore, every one did as he pleased (Judges 21:25). This rebukes the folly of those who would neglect the care of divine things, and devote themselves merely to the administration of justice among men; as if God had appointed rulers in his own name to decide earthly controversies, and omitted what was of far greater moment, his own pure worship as prescribed by his law. Such views are adopted by turbulent men, who, in their eagerness to make all kinds of innovations with impunity, would fain get rid of all the vindicators of violated piety.

Westminster Confession of 1646, XXIII:3

The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

The American amended version of the Confession, as held by the OPC, PCA and others, runs counter to this view, though some ministers (including myself) take exception to their amended form of XXIII:3 and affirm the original. Calvin and Westminster's views advocated neither Ecclesiocracy nor Erastianism.


----------



## lynnie (Mar 12, 2010)

Well Glenn, I like your Calvin quote better than what I heard from Horton's WHI.

_The American amended version of the Confession, as held by the OPC, PCA and others, runs counter to this view, though some ministers (including myself) take exception to their amended form of XXIII:3 and affirm the original. Calvin and Westminster's views advocated neither Ecclesiocracy nor Erastianism. _

So the amended version separates church and civil more than the original WCF.....and WSC separates it even farther? 

What exactly is the dividing line between the current WCF PCA/OPC position, and the R2k position? Are there different opinions about what a preacher could say in church about some social injustice for example?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Mar 12, 2010)

Here are some resources on the 2 kingdoms:

Natural Law and Two Kingdoms in Stereo (Updated) 

Beware of the thecrats here and elsewhere who speak as if anyone who says that the civil magistrate should not enforce the first table or who denies that there should be a state church is a "radical." That's an odd definition of radical since it indicts the entire American Presbyterian church, which revised the Westminster Confession to deny civil theocracy and it denies those Reformed churches which have adopted or which use a revised version of the Belgic Confession (Art 36) which also denies civil theocracy. Such rhetoric indicts Abraham Kuyper (whom most regard as a strong advocate of the Lordship of Christ!) and J. Gresham Machen (the founder of Westminster Seminary) and most contemporary orthodox Reformed pastors and teachers.

The faculty of Westminster Seminary California recently held a conference to help folks sort out these questions. 

The video is free and online here:

Christ, Kingdom & Culture | WSC Conference 2010

The audio is available inexpensively from The Bookstore at WSC:

The Bookstore at WSC: Christ, Kingdom and Culture by WSC Faculty

Here are more resources:

Two kingdoms


----------



## Christusregnat (Mar 13, 2010)

Yes, Dr. Clark, but we're recovering the Reformed Confession on civil government, praise be to God!

;-)


----------



## Casey (Mar 13, 2010)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Beware of the thecrats here and elsewhere who speak as if anyone who says that the civil magistrate should not enforce the first table or who denies that there should be a state church is a "radical."


I don't recall anyone using the word "radical" in this sense.


jetbrane said:


> The “radical” in Radical two Kingdom theology is found in the reality that the R2Kt folks deny that the church has any role in advising the state, or that the state has any role in protecting the church.


In this debate, I've only heard it used this way. The problem with R2K is that the Church's proclamation of Scripture is muzzled in the public/civil realm. That's why it's "radical" and that's why it's wrong. It's hard for me to conceive of an R2K Christian ever becoming a martyr; John the Baptist may not have lost his head if he held to that theology.


----------



## lynnie (Mar 13, 2010)

Christusregnat said:


> Yes, Dr. Clark, but we're recovering the Reformed Confession on civil government, praise be to God!
> 
> ;-)





This whole thing is mentally intriguing but also to some degree humorous. We have the original WCF and Belgic , and then we have a revised WCF and Belgic. And then we have people here who go back to the original, and Mr Recovering the Reformed Confessions himself gets on to hold to the revised version.

Machen's warrior children indeed.

So anyway, what I am still trying to understand without reading all the zillions of links is what the practical examples are. What about a guy who uses his pulpit to denounce our favored nation status with China when they are tossing Christians in jail? What about an ordained elder who promotes alternative energy movements to get off dependency on Christ hating Islamic nation's oil? What about a minister like Chuck Baldwin who is screaming and hollering about the unconstitutional and unethical bailout that puts biilions into Goldman Sachs while destroying the pensions of the little guys? 

So it is OK to be a John the Baptist unless you are an ordained elder? Or you can be an elder and be John the Baptist as long as it never happens during the preaching? I am OK with that by the way for the most part, but what if you preach through Amos? Don't get me wrong, I want preaching that focuses on God, not politics, but they can overlap.

I'd love to hear a few practical examples of what Rk2 and regular old K2 would look like in today's world. I'd like to know what is off limits in an Rk2 sermon.

Wilberforce did what he did as a citizen, not the church, right? But didn't he appeal to God's word all those long years? So is that OK with Rk2? or not?


----------



## Casey (Mar 13, 2010)

Lynnie, I think your post draws attention to some of the problems stemming from the R2K's dualistic nature. If the state does something morally wrong, then Christians ought to think in the category of biblical ethics and critique public policy using Scripture. Christians will not do that if the Church doesn't teach them how to think biblically -- all actions are moral actions, even when done by an institution. Pastors ought to feel free to touch on public policy when it is appropriate to what is happening to the congregation's membership or, of course, if it rises from the text. A book that helped me start thinking more biblically on these issues was _Idols for Destruction_, by Herbert Schlossberg -- highly recommended. The Church and individual Christians ought to point to the testimony of Scripture in all these issues, yes, even in the public sphere. Scripture is the lamp, the light, the clear truth, in a way general revelation is not.


----------



## Marvin Torgeson (Mar 13, 2010)

I cannot conceive of a Christianity that is content with the gentile world it dwells in. The gospel goes out because the Spirit of God is ever seeking to expand the Kingdom of God. Jesus came to save sinners; its my opinion there are plenty of sinners that God will save and to get that done a breakthrough into their own little world is necessary. Im left with a strange wonder about any kind of acquiescence to our own culture; as long as its left to its own goals, Christianity wont be 'comfortably raising our children in homes where we can enjoy the blessings of God with our heathen neighbors', no, we will be cultural exiles, enemies of the state and imprisoned for our KoG citizenship. I dont think John Knox shared this kind of thinking, Ive not read anything from Calvin that lead me to believe that culture is meant to be singularly dictated to us by the atheistical rich. 
As long as the ungodly rule, the Church must suffer. Now, that might very well be the condition which God has so determined to leave the Church in. But everything within the Christian and within the scripture points God's people to relief of suffering, living openly the glorious truths of the gospel and fashioning communities based upon godly principles instead of darkened and ignorant pagan philosophy. 

Its one thing for the Christian to be exhorted to patience and quietness from the standpoint that God has not called his people to create chaos, insurrections and wars against governments that are not offended at our dual citizenship. Its another thing to hide behind divine sovereignty and peacefulness while the Devil manufactures instruments of death and destruction for Christians while they lay sleeping on a bed of apathy. 
If God has providentially given us a voice to raise in defense of our own safety and peace, I say we use that voice and condemn any intentions to silence it.

It might be true that God intends to save the few he has in America and then send this country into a season of death-dealing where the gospel message is silenced. We all know that to silence the gospel is to end the expansion of God's Kingdom into the hearts of sinners. But while I live, I must proclaim the gospel which saves sinners as well as preserves the Christian. As long as a Christian lives, he is a stone resisting a current of hell-bound men.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Mar 13, 2010)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Beware of the thecrats here and elsewhere who speak as if anyone who says that the civil magistrate should not enforce the first table or who denies that there should be a state church is a "radical." That's an odd definition of radical since it indicts the entire American Presbyterian church, which revised the Westminster Confession to deny civil theocracy and it denies those Reformed churches which have adopted or which use a revised version of the Belgic Confession (Art 36) which also denies civil theocracy. Such rhetoric indicts Abraham Kuyper (whom most regard as a strong advocate of the Lordship of Christ!) and J. Gresham Machen (the founder of Westminster Seminary) and most contemporary orthodox Reformed pastors and teachers.


 
Note: I have nowhere in this thread used the word “radical” to describe anyone; and fail to find such undefined qualifiers helpful to the discussion.

However, disagreement with the non-establishment position of the amended American version of the Westminster Standards (XXIII:3) or the revised version of the Belgic Confession (Art. 36), and those denomination holding such is not intended as an “indictment” in the sense of bring serious charges of heresy against them. Obviously, this matter is not a central issue of the gospel or determinant of the legitimacy of a particular church. I am willing and able to serve within the OPC though I take exception with that particular revised paragraph of the Confession. As that denomination continues to have fraternal relations with the RPCNA, the Free Church of Scotland, and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland, I’m assuming they do not consider me an heretic any more than the brethren in those denominations which hold to the original form of the Confession.

I would point out the inconsistencies of the American form of the Westminster Standards. First, the American amended form of XXIII:3 says:

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.​
Does it not seem inconsistent to call civil magistrates “nursing fathers” and then imply they are to have no regard for the spiritual food their children ingest? If parents had such a disregard and open toleration for all manner of heresy purveyed to their children, a church might rightly bring them up on charges of parental neglect. 

Secondly, the standards themselves are inconsistent with other unamended parts. For example, the Westminster Larger Catechism say at Q. 191:

_Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?_
A. In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate; that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.​
“Countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate” implies some favor toward the gospel and church of Jesus Christ, contrary to the non-preferential indifference advocated in XXIII:3. 

However, I take exception with Dr. Clark’s labeling of those holding to the establishment view as “theocrats.” "Theocracy" is one of those boogyman words that scares us away from taking a second look at what is postulated. A strict definition of “theocracy” implies a civil government under the authority of an ecclesiastical authority. Pope Boniface VIII’s _Unam Sanctam_ of 1302 was a theocratic document arguing civil magistrates came under the authority of the pope. The original Westminster Confession did not advocate “theocracy.” 

Does Dr. Clark “indict” the, Free Church of Scotland, Free Church of Scotland Continuing, Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland, and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North American of “theocracy” or a lack of charity toward brethren in other denominations on this issue?

The rhetoric on both sides of this needs to be cooled. The issue is whether the civil magistrate has any obligation to enforce outward violations of the first table of the law. I fail to find any dispensation in the New Testament for this Old Testament obligation. In this I’m consistent with much of the Reformed heritage and await a scriptural argument for the civil magistrate’s non-obligation to “kiss the Son” and recognize him as King of kings and Lord of lords.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 13, 2010)

Dr Clark, Glenn, anyone who would care to respond-- so those following might better understand:

Is there anything in either view that would discourage a Christian from being fully involved in politics, governance, media, the arts, entertainment, etc. as part of all of life discipleship and believing that God extends His Kingdom in this way, as in many many other ways, (and not the only way, and not the primary way, and in no way a substitute for the church or covenant community, nor the supremacy of Christ in this world and the next)


----------



## lynnie (Mar 13, 2010)

Marvin, Glenn...appreciate the clarifications and thoughts.

_Scripture is the lamp, the light, the clear truth, in a way general revelation is not. _

My older brother has lived 30 years in Japan, married a bilingual Japanese girl, has three daughters. Heathen, but a nice guy and good father. Girls went to college in the USA, two of them are Christian. 

He ended up getting intensely involved in the sex trafficking fight advocating for girls. It started when the medical doctor neighbor (nice normal Japanese averagely wealthy neighborhood) was in debt, and sold his 17 year old girl to brothel for a local gang for a one year term to pay his debts. Nobody in the civil sphere cares, not the cops, not the govt. Japs flood the local and foreign brothels and my brother has been repeatly rebuked and cursed and criticized for trying to drag his American Christian values into another culture ( the irony is that he professes anti Christianity). As he began to get involved in the effort to speak up about the Asian little girl trade (prepuberty age 8-12 or so) it became apparent that their ethics and morality entirely support the practice and it is sanctioned at the highest levels, with any lip service about change being a bunch of rubbish to keep on the most favored nation trade lists. They do nothing to stop it.

Women exist for the pleasure of men and brotheling girls is fully moral and acceptable.

How can people even speak of general revelation and the law written on hearts, when it seems like total depravity and seared consciences are ruling at the highest political levels? Sex slavery is only one injustice, there are many.

Personally I don't see how Christians can do anything else but speak the word of God to the civil sphere globally, whether authorities will listen or not. I don't mean that the Sunday pulpit should depart from a focus on the gospel to a focus on politics, of course not. But how else can the civil sphere even know what is right if they don't have prophetic voices speaking to them?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 14, 2010)

We've been studying Joel Beeke's _Living for God's Glory_ in our men's fellowship group. In chapter 18 there is a quote from John Calvin written to Protector Somerset, the regent of King Edward in England. Calvin wrote:



> What I have thus suggested as to the manner of instruction, is only that the people be so taught as to be touched to the quick, and that they may feel that what the Apostle says is true, (Hebrews 4.) that “the word of God is a two-edged sword, piercing even through the thoughts and affections to the very marrow of the bones.” I speak thus, Monseigneur, because it appears to me that there is very little preaching of a lively kind in the kingdom, but that the greater part deliver it by way of reading from a written discourse. I see very well the necessity which constrains you to that; for in the first place you have not, as I believe, such well-approved and competent pastors as you desire. *Wherefore, you need forthwith to supply this want.*



I find this comment by Calvin indicative of the traditional Reformed view of the church/state relationship, the true 2K theology. Calvin had no problem with the idea that it was the responsibility of the civil magistrate as a minister of God to act as nursing father of the Church, even to the extent of seeing that faithful gospel ministers were being supplied to the pulpits within the land. 

In light of this and similar quotes by folks like Calvin, how those on the radical 2K side can claim fidelity to this Calvinist tradition is baffling.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Mar 15, 2010)

Hi All,

The most recent episode of the White Horse Inn is devoted to this topic. The guys interview David VaDrunen about his book. 

White Horse Inn

If you haven't read the book, you really should do. David explains how the historic two kingdoms view STIMULATED Christian involvement in society. 

There are a lot of folk talking about the two kingdoms who 1) haven't read primary sources in context; 2) don't know the history of the doctrine (or the history of doctrine generally); 3) haven't taken the time even to try to understand the two kingdoms view. 

Yes, one could fulfill 1-3 and still disagree with the two kingdoms view but the discussion would be more enlightened, patient, and charitable than it has been hitherto. David has certainly done his part. He's published a significant, detailed, careful explanation and he's discussed it (e.g., on Office Hours and now on the WHI) at length. Now it's up to those who are either unfamiliar with the category or who have not done the reading, if I may be direct here, to be quiet long enough to do the basic reading before they speak up again.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 15, 2010)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Hi All,
> 
> The most recent episode of the White Horse Inn is devoted to this topic. The guys interview David VaDrunen about his book.



Dr. Clark,

Just out of curiosity, do any of these somewhat controversial themes/theses in these books aimed at a somewhat popular audience ever get reviewed/published in a refereed theological journal? 

Having the author interviewed by friendly compatriots before a friendly audience does not always raise the problems with the positions taken. E.g., given their predispositions on the subject, I wouldn’t expect the White Horse Inn crew to find any significant faults with the book, even if they existed.

"The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him."


----------



## lynnie (Mar 15, 2010)

This old thread has some interesting links and observations, from all sides

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/article-critical-two-kingdom-view-47902/


This is from post #17, a few bullet points from Dr Clark: ( bold is mine)
_
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..._

I have appeciated the imput here from scholarly men who read Calvin and the confessions, even if they didn't read the latest WSC book. The Puritan board is an excellent resource- it often comes up towards the top on a google search on some subject- and a lot of folks are not going to read every book mentioned. Most average folks out there in churches are like myself- busy with kids or jobs and with limited time to read. I think it is helpful when people summarize classic positions and quote the confessions and great reformers and can briefly summarize a position. To imply that the many fine pastors and elders at the PB should stop posting until they read the DvD book, in my opinion, is not helpful. Again, I have appreciated all the interesting quotes from the original and updated confessions, and Calvin. It is obvious that this is a complex subject. 

I notice that nobody seems to be able to explain to me how natural revelation is supposed to work in cultures that after 3000 years of demonic heathenism have seared consciences and a sociopathic lack of understanding about basic justice and human rights. How does one explain R2k to people with a government that tolerates and enables sex slavery? How do you explain it to women in Afghanistan? How about a few quick sentences instead of being brushed off and told to go read another book?


----------



## mvdm (Mar 15, 2010)

As Casey's article highlights, paying attention to the meaning of terminology employed in a discussion is important. One can get distracted by equivocation over terms. A blanket claim that only "theocrats" want "enforcement" of the first table of Decalogue does not really answer more precise objections that critics raise. So what is really meant by the term theocrat? Is it one who acknowledges that God rules over all men in all settings? Well, then even Clark is a "theocrat" in that broad sense. What is "enforcement"? It is positive coercion, or is it accommodation to, interest in, acknowledgment of, and submission to the normative standards of God's Word/commands? In this latter sense, even Clark would agree with magistrate's "enforcement" of a command found in first table of the law, i.e., setting aside a day of Sabbath rest. That would make him a quasi/quarter theocrat. 

R2kt-er's sometimes will obfuscate in their appeal to the revised Belgic Art. 36. They think we won't notice that while the revision removed the magistrate's "suppression of heresy", the Belgic still doesn't support their "Bible -for- the- church & natural law-for- the- common realm" project. The revised Belgic still retains the "Word of God" as the normative standard for the magistrates' lawful rule. Of course, there are other confessional provisions that reject the R2kt idea that the institutional church may not appeal to special revelation to address ethical issues in the "common realm". 

Nor should anyone be distracted when we are told critics haven't read primary sources, or that R2kt folks are being misunderstood, or that criticism is uncharitable. Those are the same tactics employed by the Federal Visionists to try to silence their critics. The fact of the matter is that church leaders have read the publications of the Escondido R2kt men, have read the primary sources, understand full well the confessional implications, and have rejected it. There are growing signs that more leaders in different NAPARC churches are of late waking up to this revisionist theology.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 15, 2010)

More on Calvin’s 2K; the Reformers' view of separation of church and state:



> “Some, in imagining that all these things were temporary, as magistrates were still strangers to our profession of religion, are led astray, by not observing the distinction and dissimilarity between ecclesiastical and civil power. For the Church has not the right of the sword to punish or restrain, has no power to coerce, no prison nor other punishments which the magistrate is wont to inflict. Then the object in view is not to punish the sinner against his will, but to obtain a profession of penitence by voluntary chastisement. The two things, therefore, are widely different, because neither does the Church assume anything to herself which is proper to the magistrate, nor is the magistrate competent to what is done by the Church. This will be made clearer by an example. Does any one get intoxicated. In a well-ordered city his punishment will be imprisonment. Has he committed whoredom? The punishment will be similar, or rather more severe. Thus satisfaction will be given to the laws, the magistrates, and the external tribunal. But the consequence will be, that the offender will give no signs of repentance, but will rather fret and murmur. Will the Church not here interfere? Such persons cannot be admitted to the Lord’s Supper without doing injury to Christ and his sacred institution. Reason demands that he who, by a bad example, gives offence to the Church, shall remove the offence which he has caused by a formal declaration of repentance. The reason adduced by those who take a contrary view is frigid. Christ, they say, gave this office to the Church when there were no magistrates to execute it. But it often happens that the magistrate is negligent, nay, sometimes himself requires to be chastised; as was the case with the Emperor Theodosius. Moreover, the same thing may be said regarding the whole ministry of the word. Now, therefore, according to that view, let pastors cease to censure manifest iniquities, let them cease to chide, accuse, and rebuke. For there are Christian magistrates who ought to correct these things by the laws and the sword. But as the magistrate ought to purge the Church of offences by corporal punishment and coercion, so the minister ought, in his turn, to assist the magistrate in diminishing the number of offenders. Thus they ought to combine their efforts, the one being not an impediment but a help to the other.” (Institutes; 4:11:3)




---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 PM ----------




lynnie said:


> I notice that nobody seems to be able to explain to me how natural revelation is supposed to work in cultures that after 3000 years of demonic heathenism have seared consciences and a sociopathic lack of understanding about basic justice and human rights. How does one explain R2k to people with a government that tolerates and enables sex slavery? How do you explain it to women in Afghanistan? How about a few quick sentences instead of being brushed off and told to go read another book?


 
Lynnie,

John Frame offered a similar observation in his critique of Van Drunen’s book. 



> As a treatment of natural law itself, apart from the two-kingdoms construction, Van Drunen’s book ignores the most important issues: (a) The unbeliever’s suppression of the truth of natural law, which Van Drunen mentions on p. 17 and then ignores through the rest of the book. He never struggles with the problem of how natural law can function as a practical standard of human life, when people inevitably suppress the truth in unrighteousness. (Review of David Van Drunen, _A Biblical Case for Natural Law_)



Perhaps they will tackle that question and offer an informed response on the White Horse Inn one of these days. In the recent Van Drunen interview, he sets up a strawman position – identical behavior in church and non-church settings – and then proceeds to knock it down. Of course no one accepts that position, even folks outside WSC.


----------



## lynnie (Mar 15, 2010)

Tom.....

Thank you very much!!!!!

I want to be Reformed and confessional ( ie biblical) and it really helps to hear the "other side".

It sounds like in a genuine good effort to address the American evangelical marriage of Christianity and politics, they have fallen into the trap of thinking God's values are grasped by leaders all over the globe. They are not. I'm not saying that Sunday morning should sound like Tony Campolo instead of the gospel, but neither do the old quotes reflect R2k/WSC.

Thanks again.


----------



## Jon Peters (Mar 15, 2010)

mvdm said:


> As Casey's article highlights, paying attention to the meaning of terminology employed in a discussion is important. One can get distracted by equivocation over terms. A blanket claim that only "theocrats" want "enforcement" of the first table of Decalogue does not really answer more precise objections that critics raise. So what is really meant by the term theocrat? Is it one who acknowledges that God rules over all men in all settings? Well, then even Clark is a "theocrat" in that broad sense. What is "enforcement"? It is positive coercion, or is it accommodation to, interest in, acknowledgment of, and submission to the normative standards of God's Word/commands? In this latter sense, even Clark would agree with magistrate's "enforcement" of a command found in first table of the law, i.e., setting aside a day of Sabbath rest. That would make him a quasi/quarter theocrat.
> 
> R2kt-er's sometimes will obfuscate in their appeal to the revised Belgic Art. 36. They think we won't notice that while the revision removed the magistrate's "suppression of heresy", the Belgic still doesn't support their "Bible -for- the- church & natural law-for- the- common realm" project. The revised Belgic still retains the "Word of God" as the normative standard for the magistrates' lawful rule. Of course, there are other confessional provisions that reject the R2kt idea that the institutional church may not appeal to special revelation to address ethical issues in the "common realm".
> 
> Nor should anyone be distracted when we are told critics haven't read primary sources, or that R2kt folks are being misunderstood, or that criticism is uncharitable. Those are the same tactics employed by the Federal Visionists to try to silence their critics. The fact of the matter is that church leaders have read the publications of the Escondido R2kt men, have read the primary sources, understand full well the confessional implications, and have rejected it. There are growing signs that more leaders in different NAPARC churches are of late waking up to this revisionist theology.


 
I sympathize with what Clark is saying; however, he preaches to, more or less, a brick wall here on the PB. Many (of the most boisterous) have no time to study the "heresy" coming from WSC. If they do study, they avoid the primary sources adn instead read the critiques from someone on their side. This is human nature. We are most comfortable with that which confirms what we already believe. In addition, the Two Kingdoms position undercuts their desire to impose (in varying forms and degrees) the typical kingdom of Israel on secular government. In my opinion, the mistake made by the theocrats here on the PB (and elsewhere) and especially by Theonomists (and, ironically, the same mistake made by Federal Visionists) is the failure to see the fulfillment of (much of) the Old Testament in the New.

We cannot be so wedded to the theology of the 16th and 17th century that we fail to improve upon it where it is warranted by Scripture to do so. Confessionalism is grand, but only in so far as it is ever reforming and conforming to the Truth. We should not believe a position simply because one of our confessions says it is so, nor because Calvin said so (though I do agree those sources should be given much deference). 

Many will read my comments and simply not see the criticism I am leveling. That is why the PB is not the place to _really_ explore the Biblical texts. There is a good history lesson here, but not much more.

As someone who posts very rarely and is known by very few on the PB, these comments will mean very little, nor will my leaving PB permanently be of any consequence to most. But I must do so for my own sanity. Many on this board are building a church that will eventually exclude everyone. Very said indeed.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Mar 15, 2010)

Jon Peters said:


> We cannot be so wedded to the theology of the 16th and 17th century that we fail to improve upon it where it is warranted by Scripture to do so. Confessionalism is grand, but only in so far as it is ever reforming and conforming to the Truth. We should not believe a position simply because one of our confessions says it is so, nor because Calvin said so (though I do agree those sources should be given much deference).


 

But Dr. Clark's book is called Recovering the Reformed Confessions, not Reinventing the Reformed Confessions. The argument cuts both ways. You can't claim to be in the tradition of Calvin while ignoring or reinterpreting much of what Calvin wrote. 

It's also possible that those who are finding "truth" in WSC are merely reading what the faculty is saying about Calvin, etc, rather than immersing themselves in the original material. 

I have to wonder if the "improvements" of the American Confessions were truly improvements wrt the civil magistrate, how is it that the rest of the Reformed and Presbyterian Church apart from a handful of US denominations have not taken up these amendments?


----------



## MW (Mar 15, 2010)

I'm in process of writing a review of VanDrunen's book and can't disclose too much. In brief, he very clearly explains the traditional two kingdom theory. The problem arises when he begins criticising the traditional reformed view on the basis that religious tolerance is necessary to make two kingdom teaching coherent. At that point he is self-consciously mapping out his own theory, and it is on that point that discussion should be focussed. As I said in an earlier thread, the reformed tradition insists that the light of nature teaches one true God Who is to be worshipped, loved, feared, etc. It is evident therefore that toleration of other religions is contrary to natural law ethics as understood by the reformed tradition.

On another note, more pragmatic, the idea of religious toleration has proven a dismal failure. Our governments don't allow aboriginal peoples, Popish supremacists, or Islamic extremists to freely practice their religion. In fact, it is clear that Church-State separation has led to a state of affairs where faithful Christians are not permitted to lawfully practice the exclusivistic ideals of their religion, and it will only be a matter of time before verbal persecution leads to legal prosecution for failure to conform to libertarian policy.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Mar 16, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> I'm in process of writing a review of VanDrunen's book and can't disclose too much. In brief, he very clearly explains the traditional two kingdom theory. The problem arises when he begins criticising the traditional reformed view on the basis that religious tolerance is necessary to make two kingdom teaching coherent. At that point he is self-consciously mapping out his own theory, and it is on that point that discussion should be focussed. As I said in an earlier thread, the reformed tradition insists that the light of nature teaches one true God Who is to be worshipped, loved, feared, etc. It is evident therefore that toleration of other religions is contrary to natural law ethics as understood by the reformed tradition.
> 
> On another note, more pragmatic, the idea of religious toleration has proven a dismal failure. Our governments don't allow aboriginal peoples, Popish supremacists, or Islamic extremists to freely practice their religion. In fact, it is clear that Church-State separation has led to a state of affairs where faithful Christians are not permitted to lawfully practice the exclusivistic ideals of their religion, and it will only be a matter of time before verbal persecution leads to legal prosecution for failure to conform to libertarian policy.


Rev. Winzer, please let me know where and when your review will be available. I just purchased VanDrunen's book this weekend (in order better to understand "the other side").

As one who rejects any and all two kingdom theology, in favor of the Covenanter doctrine of Christ's mediatorial reign over both church and state, I cannot find that "traditional" two kingdom theology can be coerced into the service it is now being pressed. I am quite aware that men like Gillespie and Rutherford specifically rejected the idea of Christ's mediatorial kingship over nations; but anyone who thinks they would advocate the toleration of false churches or religions need only read their own works on "toleration." Brown of Haddington's "Absurdity and Perfidy, etc." is framed within the Seceder's self-conscious rejection of the Covenanter doctrine, and maintains Christ to be king over nations only as He is Creator; but he charges with absurdity and covenant-breaking ("perfidy") those who would relax Britain's laws against Popery. "Two kingdoms" vs. "mediatorial kingdom" doesn't make any practical difference when it comes to the establishment principle -- in both concepts, God has ordained the state and invested the civil magistrate with office to fulfill His purpose, and to maintain and defend His law. The added thought that the nations are not only ordained by God, but also under the mediatorial rule of Christ, is (to borrow a phrase from discussions of covenanting) merely a "superadded obligation" to that which they are already bound.

I was just discussing this subject this last weekend in Grand Rapids, with a learned Anti-Paedobaptist and Disestablishmentarian, Jay Collier. He had been going over the second volume of Denison's "Reformed Confessions," and noted in passing that several confessional statements of the Reformed churches (not merely private theologians or ministers) gave particular mention and emphasis to the doctrine that the civil magistrate is to uphold the first table of the law, and not merely the second. Jay's analysis was that modern-day advocates of "two kingdom theology" have hijacked the concept to fit their own disestablishmentarian presuppositions. I couldn't agree more.


----------



## MW (Mar 16, 2010)

Kaalvenist said:


> Rev. Winzer, please let me know where and when your review will be available. I just purchased VanDrunen's book this weekend (in order better to understand "the other side").



Will do. You will find the book contains interesting comments relative to the RP position.



Kaalvenist said:


> As one who rejects any and all two kingdom theology, in favor of the Covenanter doctrine of Christ's mediatorial reign over both church and state, I cannot find that "traditional" two kingdom theology can be coerced into the service it is now being pressed. I am quite aware that men like Gillespie and Rutherford specifically rejected the idea of Christ's mediatorial kingship over nations; but anyone who thinks they would advocate the toleration of false churches or religions need only read their own works on "toleration." Brown of Haddington's "Absurdity and Perfidy, etc." is framed within the Seceder's self-conscious rejection of the Covenanter doctrine, and maintains Christ to be king over nations only as He is Creator; but he charges with absurdity and covenant-breaking ("perfidy") those who would relax Britain's laws against Popery.



Good observations. Practically speaking, one can see that an attempt to turn the two kingdom teaching into a reason for toleration would have been met with a response of alarm. I think that is important to note.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 16, 2010)

Just an FYI that, Lord willing, Matthew Winzer's review of Dr. VanDrunen's book will appear in the forthcoming 2010 issue of _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal. The editors would like to hit a bit earlier release this year, hopefully this Fall. Also, there is a new special offer to pick up the first 5 issues of the journal (2005-2009) for a low price of $55 postage paid (US; $80 non USA). See details at cpjournal.com.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Mar 17, 2010)

I should add, I do not adhere to Theonomy, or even Postmillennialism (I'm Amillennial). I just believe that the moral law, as summarized in the Ten Commandments, binds all men in all of their capacities, including as civil magistrates. If they are bound to keep just the first two commandments, this means that they must enforce correct belief (1st command) and correct worship (2d command); which would at least approximate something like the establishment principle.

If men have no more than the light or law of nature, they still ought to know that (1) there is only one God, who alone ought to be worshipped, (2) who alone has the right to determine how he will be worshipped, (3) who ought to be worshipped with all suitable reverence, (4) particularly at times of his own appointment, especially for corporate worship (which itself is mandated by the light and law of nature, as man is a corporate being). General revelation does not reveal as much as special revelation, but it does not reveal anything discordant with or against special revelation. Likewise, the law of nature does not particularly reveal how God is to be worshipped, as far as particular ordinances; what day is to be observed, etc. But neither does it reveal a moral free-for-all, as far as God is concerned.

No man keeps the moral law as he ought; no civil magistrate enforces the moral law as he ought. Why would failure in the second example prove magistrates to be exempt from their duty, if failure in the first example does not prove men in general to be exempt? It is the duty of civil magistrates to legislate on and enforce morality; and the moral law does not merely embrace the second table, but the first as well.


----------

