# Two Kingdom Theology & the OPC



## JML (May 29, 2014)

How accepted is Two Kingdom Theology in the OPC? Is it something that the denomination is fighting or is it seen as an acceptable theology?


----------



## Andres (May 30, 2014)

It's acceptable. You will find folks, including ministers, on both sides of the Two Kingdom debate, but personally in the cirlces I ran in, more of the ministers/elders leaned towards a Two Kingdom view. I searched "two kingdoms" on the OPC website and it brought back 78 returns! You'll have to weed through the articles but at brief glance, there are articles both for and against the two kingdom position.


----------



## Jake (May 30, 2014)

Interestingly enough, in my own congregation, a sunday school topic ended up including elements of the two kingdom view. While the pastor was generally speaking from that direction, the congregation seemed to have a lot of problems with what he was saying.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard (May 30, 2014)

Just to be clear, Are you asking about 2K Theology or R2K Theology?


----------



## JML (May 30, 2014)

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Just to be clear, Are you asking about 2K Theology or R2K Theology?



I'm not sure I know the difference. I have just heard and read articles that Two Kingdom theology was an issue in the OPC.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 30, 2014)

Everyone except Erastians believe in traditional 2 Kingdom theology. That's not so much the issue. The R2K branch is when we start talking about promoting different ethical norms and that the "common sphere" is ruled by "common grace ethic" (whatever that is).


----------



## tcalbrecht (May 30, 2014)

If the speaker says, "Close your Bible when you leave the church building," that's R2K.


----------



## Brian R. (May 30, 2014)

tcalbrecht said:


> If the speaker says, "Close your Bible when you leave the church building," that's R2K.



This is why I can barely tolerate some California Reformed guys. Won't mention names, but I used to love listening to them. Godly men, no doubt, but R2K drove me away...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 30, 2014)

Any time *labels* are attached to particular teaching, you then must start dealing with the question, "who or what defines the label; what is the authorized content of the teaching?"

There are our Confessional documents, which in some sense are various attempts at defining the content of our faith for a broad swath of fellow-saints. Then, there are recombinant doctrines, over which there ends up being much debate.

Different camps seek to establish that their position is (ofttimes) the one, necessary entailment of the Confession to which all are supposed to be agreed. Arguments--sometimes overly harsh--come about when one side (or both) feel that some other position does real and essential damage to the "parent DNA" of the Confession.

The Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity both refer to the kingship of Christ, and each implies something of a dual reign--over all, and over the church. However, unlike what I understand the Lutheran branch of the Reformation to _confess_ (i.e., to explicitly agree as a declaration of unanimity on the Bible's teaching), typical Reformed statements of faith don't use the *terminology*: "The Two Kingdoms."

But it is possible to find "two kingdoms" language in our own heritage of theologians, going back to Calvin. So the idea is obviously not alien, but reflects a single Reformation-root; and we might say, the notion is properly explicable in historical terms as the Protestant teaching is contrasted to the medieval theological development of the doctrine of the Two Swords, having its roots in the theology of Augustin's Two Cities.

At present, there are multiple forms for the expression of Kingdom, all which claim to find support in the doctrines that are confessed together. No one camp has ownership of the terminology; none can say with other than scholarly authority what defines "correct" Kingdom theology, once the explicit ecclesiastical statements (Confessions) have been affirmed by everyone.

The relation between the Lordship of Christ and the lords of the nations has always been a challenge of negotiation for the church. At times, the church has been utterly powerless in earthly terms; and at other times possessed varying degrees of influence with, under, or over certain temporal lords. When one adds into the mix the fact that the American Presbyterians and Reformed Churches amended their Confessions in the non-establishment environment of the North American continent and history, it may be more apparent how agreement among believers concerning the limits of what we ought to say with one voice on this subject has fluctuated.

THAT Christ is Lord is undeniable, if one wishes to maintain the Christian faith. HOW he exercises his Lordship 1) over all, and 2) over the church, is the substance of what some persons may seem contentious over. HOW Christ is Lord also impacts the corporate behavior of the church, and the behavior of individual Christians; just as much as THAT Christ is Lord.

But, I also say that the camp most vocally in opposition to a "strict" Two-Kingdoms (a true bifurcation of Christ's Lordship roles) seems to me strongly motivated by the palpable loss of moral influence upon the larger society by Christianity in general--institutional and personal. And because this camp *blames* the church-in-declension for this loss, they are upset when they see the "soteriologically orthodox" (etc.) apparently complacent in the face of this loss of "voice" and the specter of persecution.

These believe that the "soteriologically orthodox" should also agree with their vision of "socially-conscious orthodoxy." They believe the church to be an agency for *guided change* in the wider culture--as opposed to being more of a *rescue mission* for the elect, and an agency for the temporal sustenance specifically of those progressively more and more alienated from their "home" culture. Churches and ministers who aren't as interested in "fixing" non-ecclesial institutions are, therefore, "part of the problem," as they see it. "Disobedient to Christ," who, they think, would have everyone be an activist.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that to live "a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way," is the whole ordinary biblical mandate for believers, who are to be "blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world" (1Tim.2:2; Php.2.15). 1Ths.4:11, "Aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands." And I'm suspicious of "Christian leaders" who are eager to obtain a great following of their marvelous insight into the wise direction of Christian cultural hegemony.

There is no specific promise from heaven that our individual or collective efforts will result in seismic, cultural shifts toward righteousness and holiness. When and where it does thankfully happen, we should anticipate (as a matter of course) an "equal and opposite reaction" in due time from the innate godlessness of this fallen world. And if that reactionary time is where happen to be, presently and providentially, then Christian activism isn't likely to work any more exceptional a reversal of the tide than will unobtrusive "sticking to one's knitting."


----------



## R Harris (May 30, 2014)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Any time *labels* are attached to particular teaching, you then must start dealing with the question, "who or what defines the label; what is the authorized content of the teaching?"
> 
> There are our Confessional documents, which in some sense are various attempts at defining the content of our faith for a broad swath of fellow-saints. Then, there are recombinant doctrines, over which there ends up being much debate.
> 
> ...



You could have saved time and keying effort by just saying you are amil.


----------



## VictorBravo (May 30, 2014)

R Harris said:


> You could have saved time and keying effort by just saying you are amil.



But then I would have missed out on the pleasure of reading something like this after a very long week of hard-fought knitting-sticking.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 31, 2014)

VictorBravo said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> > You could have saved time and keying effort by just saying you are amil.
> ...



And such an answer would have also served no purpose in answering the OP when someone is trying to get their arms around the various uses of the term "Two Kingdoms".

OP: "What is Two Kingdoms Theology?"
Bruce: "I'm Amil."
"Huh?"

Seriously, good post Bruce.


Contra_Mundum said:


> Personally, I'm of the opinion that to live "a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way," is the whole ordinary biblical mandate for believers, who are to be "blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world" (1Tim.2:2; Php.2.15)


 But, then again, that's right out of Scripture.


----------

