# Two Kingdoms Primer



## Catechist

After reading many posts on PB that seem to confuse the two kingdoms or deny the two kingdoms, I thought the outline offered here by Kim Riddlebarger might be a help. 

"Here's a brief primer on the basics of the Reformed doctrine of the two kingdoms.

As you consider the distinctions between these two kingdoms, please keep in mind the following presuppositions upon which the distinctions are based:

1). Christ is Lord of both kingdoms. He rules the kingdom of Christ (regnum gratiae) as the mediator of the covenant of grace, and he rules the civil kingdom (regnum potentiae) as sovereign Lord.

2). Every Christian is simultaneously a citizen of both kingdoms (Philippians 3:20; Romans 13:1-7).

3). The state is a post-fall, common grace institution given by God for the administration of justice and to restrain evil (Genesis 4:18 ff; Romans 13:1-7).

4). Non-Christians do not accept or acknowledge Christ's Lordship over the civil kingdom. This is the basis for the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian ways of thinking and doing. The failure to acknowledge Christ's Lordship renders one guilty before God (Romans 1:18-25), but does not invalidate the civil kingdom or the non-Christian's place in it. 

5). While Paul calls Rome a minister of God (Romans 13:4), a generation later John describes that same empire as the beast, empowered by the dragon to persecute the people of God (Revelation 13). The Christian's confession that "Jesus is Lord," is likewise a confession that Caesar isn't. Christians must be cognizant that the kingdom of Christ can be seen as a threat to the power of the state. In fact, throughout Scripture, the state is the dragon's weapon of last resort against Christ and his kingdom. 


6). From the time Adam was cast from Eden, God has intended the kingdom of Christ (the church) to dwell and advance in the midst of the civil kingdom (the world). This is the foundation for the missionary endeavors of the church, as well as a hedge against either utopianism (an over-realized eschatology) or escapism (i.e., monasticism)."

For the distinctions between the two kingdoms (see more here)

Riddleblog - The Latest Post - A Two Kingdoms Primer


----------



## Scott1

This makes sense, thank you.


----------



## larryjf

Catechist said:


> 6). From the time Adam was cast from Eden, God has intended the kingdom of Christ (the church) to dwell and advance in the midst of the civil kingdom (the world). This is the foundation for the missionary endeavors of the church, as well as a hedge against either utopianism (an over-realized eschatology) or escapism (i.e., monasticism)."


 
Though the kingdom of Christ is not OF the world, it is certainly IN the world. Therefore, I don't see how the kingdom of Christ (the Church) can advance without affecting the civil kingdom (the world).


----------



## ADKing

Catechist said:


> 1). Christ is Lord of both kingdoms. He rules the kingdom of Christ (regnum gratiae) as the mediator of the covenant of grace, and he rules the civil kingdom (regnum potentiae) as sovereign Lord.
> Riddleblog - The Latest Post - A Two Kingdoms Primer*


 
Although this distinction surely can be found among reformed writers, it does not do justice, in my opinion, to the many testimonies in Scripture that Christ's dominion over the nations has been given to him (e.g. Matthew 28.18). Christ exercises dominion over all things, including the nations, as Mediator.


----------



## Catechist

Probably the best argument(s) I have found against generalizing the mediatorial kingdom doctrine and applying Christ as Mediator to both realms indiscriminately -is to study George Gillespie.

He proves the opposite point in Aaron's Rod Blossoming pg.90 here,
Aaron's rod blossoming, or, The ... - Google Books

I would like to see any modern day covenanter deal with Gillespie above and take on each of his arguments one by one. 

Christ rules the civil kingdom (regnum potentiae) as sovereign Lord and not as mediator. 

Gillespie got it right, Aaron's Rod pg 90 (Best argumentation to deal with here)
Rutherford got it right, Divine Right pg. 564
Rutherford got it right, Divine Right pg. 510
Rutherford got it right, Lex Rex pg. 216
Turretin got it right, Institutes 3.278
To mention a few...


----------



## jwright82

I can agree with everything but this point: 


Catechist said:


> 3). The state is a post-fall, common grace institution given by God for the administration of justice and to restrain evil (Genesis 4:18 ff; Romans 13:1-7).



The two proof texts given don't show that in its essence the state is a post-fall institution. They both show an exspansion to what was ohterwise an aspect of creation itself. If Adam never sinned than we would probably still have some form of goverment or state. The aspect of the state was developed by God to deal with the reality of sin. It is the direction this creational aspect can be developed that determines whether or not it is Godly or not. That is why Paul and John can make different statments about the same thing at different times and both be correct. The direction that Rome as a state was developed was into a apostate form of essentially an anti-Christ state. But with the Christianzation of the state of Rome it was developed in yet another more, maybe?, Godly direction. So the state is essentially "good" but the direction a state can be developed can be good or bad. Other than that I don't have any real quibbles with it.


----------



## MW

I don't believe any reformed writers would exclude the fact that the donation made to Christ includes "all things." How does Mr. Riddlebarger propose to account for the fact that the church is gathered out of the world and preserved in the world if the world is not under the dominion of Christ as Mediator? The 2K distinction as it set forth in the OP simply is not biblical or reformed. It is none other than Christ the faithful witness and the first-begotten of the dead Who is is the prince of the kings of the earth, Rev. 1:5. Without that understanding the Apocalypse makes little sense.

To avoid confusion it may be helpful to distinguish between the modern "dual two kingdom" view and the traditional "mutual two kingdom" view. It is in the interests of good historical theology to make note of the paradigm shift which has taken place.


----------



## TimV

armourbearer said:


> It is none other than Christ the faithful witness and the first-begotten of the dead Who is is the prince of the kings of the earth



Three cheers.



armourbearer said:


> To avoid confusion it may be helpful to distinguish between the modern "dual two kingdom" view and the traditional "mutual two kingdom" view. It is in the interests of good historical theology to make note of the paradigm shift which has taken place.



Four cheers.


----------



## Catechist

Is the answer this simple? 

Riddleblog - The Latest Post - A Two Kingdoms Primer


----------



## tcalbrecht

Catechist said:


> Probably the best argument(s) I have found against generalizing the mediatorial kingdom doctrine and applying Christ as Mediator to both realms indiscriminately -is to study George Gillespie.


 
Gillespie's argument was against those who would give the civil magistrate authority in and over the Church. His remarks must be understood in that context. 

Also, Gillespie would not argue that the Christian civil magistrate cannot use the revealed Word of God as his guide and authority in justly ruling the nation. He would also certainly not argue that the civil magistrate is not bound to enforce the entire moral law, i.e., the Ten Commandments.

Both points are historical two kingdoms teaching.


----------



## Catechist

Mr. Riddlebarger writes,

"Mr. Barrow,

Simple answer.

Does Christ intend to save the world? Or does he intend to save his people?

I'm not a hypothetical universalist. Christ's redemptive work is effectual for all those who are his and truly, not just externally in the covenant of grace. Therefore in his mediatorial office he rules his church."


----------



## tcalbrecht

Catechist said:


> Mr. Riddlebarger writes,
> 
> Does Christ intend to save the world? Or does he intend to save his people?


 

Yes. John 3:16 is not just theory.


----------



## MW

Catechist said:


> Does Christ intend to save the world? Or does he intend to save his people?
> 
> I'm not a hypothetical universalist. Christ's redemptive work is effectual for all those who are his and truly, not just externally in the covenant of grace. Therefore in his mediatorial office he rules his church."


 
I'm not sure of the propriety of cross posting in this way. But a simple answer deserves a simple response -- the visible church consists of some for whom Christ did not die (WCF 10:4; LC 63, 68); so Mr. Riddlebarger's categories are failing to account for at least one important dynamic of reformed theology.


----------



## tcalbrecht

armourbearer said:


> Catechist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Christ intend to save the world? Or does he intend to save his people?
> 
> I'm not a hypothetical universalist. Christ's redemptive work is effectual for all those who are his and truly, not just externally in the covenant of grace. Therefore in his mediatorial office he rules his church."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure of the propriety of cross posting in this way. But a simple answer deserves a simple response -- the visible church consists of some for whom Christ did not die (WCF 10:4; LC 63, 68); so Mr. Riddlebarger's categories are failing to account for at least one important dynamic of reformed theology.
Click to expand...

 
On the civil side, Mr. Riddlebarger fails to carefully articulate the role of state as beast vs the role of state as protector of God's covenant people, specifically the role the state plays in providing opportunity for gospel advance. 



> 1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim. 2)



Regarding role as beast, if one takes the position, as I do, that the beast of Revelation 13 was a unique prophetic image of 1st century Rome which, together with apostate Israel, waged war against the Church in that day, a) to strengthen the Church and b) to mark the divide between the old covenant people identified with a single nation and the universal new covenant people. In this sense it is impossible to identify the beast of Revelation with events subsequent to that day.


----------



## Kevin

Since I hold to the WCF, I must reject the R2K theory.


----------



## MW

tcalbrecht said:


> Regarding role as beast, if one takes the position, as I do, that the beast of Revelation 13 was a unique prophetic image of 1st century Rome which, together with apostate Israel, waged war against the Church in that day, a) to strengthen the Church and b) to mark the divide between the old covenant people identified with a single nation and the universal new covenant people. In this sense it is impossible to identify the beast of Revelation with events subsequent to that day.


 
I don't believe we need to make any historical application of the text to see that the very term "beast" pictures an inhumane use of power which should never be regarded as functioning legitimately as part of the civil kingdom, when it is understood that the civil kingdom belongs to and functions for God.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian




----------



## Catechist

David VanDrunen's New Book on the Two Kingdoms 

Riddleblog - The Latest Post - David VanDrunen's New Book on the Two Kingdoms


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Why is the defense of R2K always "Go and read all our books!"? Dr. Clark and Dr. Hart always use this defense. As if the only reason we disagree with R2K is because we are ignorant of what has been written on the subject.


----------



## TimV

If they could name just one Reformer who would have given them the time of day.......


----------



## Catechist

To the point, Gillespie's major premise does not change with his audience. 

CHAPTER V.

OF A TWOFOLD KINGDOM OF Jesus Christ : A GENERAL KINGDOM, AS HE IS THE ETERNAL Son of God, THE HEAD OF ALL PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS, REIGNING OVER ALL CREATURES ; AND A PARTICULAR KINGDOM, AS HE IS MEDIATOR REIGNING OVER THE CHURCH ONLY.

Aaron's rod blossoming, or, The ... - Google Books

Now...did he say, Mediator Reigning over the Church Only....


----------



## MW

Catechist said:


> Now...did he say, Mediator Reigning over the Church Only....


 
You may want to consult p. 97 to properly identify the issue under discussion:



> First of all, this part of our controversy is to be rightly stated. The question is not, 1. Whether the magistrate be God's deputy or vicegerent, and as God upon earth; for who denies that ? Nor, 2. Whether the magistrate be Christ's deputy, as Christ is God, and as he exerciseth an universal dominion over all things, as the Father and the Holy Ghost doth? Here likewise I hold the affirmative. Nor, 3. *Whether the Christian magistrate be useful and subservient to the kingdom of Jesus Christ*, *even as he is Mediator and King of the church*; *for in this also I hold the affirmative*; _that is_, *that as every man in his own calling*, *parents*, *masters*, *servants*, *merchants*, *soldiers*, &c., *being Christians*, *so the magistrate in his eminent station*, *being a Christian*, *is obliged to endeavour the propagation of the gospel*, *and the good and benefit of the church of Christ*. But the question is, Whether the Christian magistrate be a govornor in the church vice Christi, in the room and stead of Jesus Christ, as he is Mediator ? Or (which is all one) whether the rise, derivation, and tenure of Christian magistracy be from Jesus Christ under this formal consideration, as he is Mediator and Head of the church ? Or (which is also the same), Whether Jesus Christ, by virtue of that authority and power of government which, as Mediator and as God-man, he received of the Father, hath substituted and given commission to the Christian magistrate to govern the church in subordination to him, as he governeth it in subordination to his Father ? In all these Mr Hussey is for the affirmative, I am for the negative.


----------



## Catechist

And did not Symington depart from a distinction Gillespie makes in his debate with the Erastians, Of a Twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ: A General Kingdom, as He is the Eternal Son of God, the Head of all Principalities and Powers, reigning over all creatures; and a particular kingdom, as he is mediator reigning over the church only. 

Gillespie insisted on this so strongly, it is one of the few documented changes to the Westminster Confession due to one divine's insistence as the words were being passed. 

Rev. Winzer...would you deny this?


----------



## MW

Catechist said:


> And did not Symington depart from a distinction Gillespie makes in his debate with the Erastians, Of a Twofold Kingdom of Jesus Christ: A General Kingdom, as He is the Eternal Son of God, the Head of all Principalities and Powers, reigning over all creatures; and a particular kingdom, as he is mediator reigning over the church only.



Gillespie is being called in to give his opinion on two distinct questions. On the first question, whether the magistrate derives his authority from Christ as Mediator, he denies. On the second question, whether the Christian magistrate is subject in the use of his authority to Christ as Mediator, he affirms. If Symington is to be understood as affirming what Gillespie denies then obviously Symington departs from Gillespie; but if his assertions relative to the civil magistrate fall under what Gillespie also affirms then he ought not to be read with a party spirit and made to disagree with Gillespie.



Catechist said:


> Gillespie insisted on this so strongly, it is one of the few documented changes to the Westminster Confession due to one divine's insistence as the words were being passed.
> 
> Rev. Winzer...would you deny this?


 
I have commented on the formulation of WCF 23 in last year's Confessional Presbyterian Journal. I would not call it a "documented change" seeing as the Confession was still in the process of being written; there is, however, clear evidence that Gillespie's distinction had a direct influence on the use of the word "God" instead of "Christ" where the confession speaks of the authority of the magistrate.


----------



## Catechist

Seems like party spirit may go both ways here, as is evident in these posts. I will look up your journal comments to get a further take on the matter...


----------



## jwright82

I must say I don't really understand the disagreement here between R2k'ers and the other points of views represented, I don't know what name they are called by sorry. Unless R2k'ers believe that there are 2 different ethical codes for each kingdom, which I disagree with on theonomic grounds, I just can't pin down the exact differences in the two points of views, what are they?

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------

Just a thought does a R2K view believe that the state or culture is a neutral areana and therefore insist on pluralism? What would the other views think on this?


----------



## Peairtach

Christ rules the Church in a different way to that in which He rules over the nations. But He rules over all things as Mediatiorial Prophet, Priest and King unto His Church and for the sake of His Church.

As part of this the Pagan, Secular, Unsanctified, Persecutory, State, represented by the First Beast of Revelation will be brought to an end in history, through the sanctifying influences of Christ's Spirit, Word, Church and Providence.

All kingdoms and nations have been given to Christ by His Father, and He is in the process of taking them "little by little.''

_By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land (Ex. 23:30, KJV) _

When under Constantine Rome was converted to Christianity, it seemed as if the Beast had been slain, but it was in God's providence not to be:-

_And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. (Rev 13:3, KJV) _

But it will be later:-

_And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. (Rev 19:20, KJV)_

Amillennialists are wrong when they believe that Christians throughout the World can't enjoy the relative freedom from Statist persecution that has been largely enjoyed by Christians in the West for some time. Postmils aren't talking about a perfect world before the Eschaton, but an imperfect but better World that is/has already been realised in measure by the influence of Christianity.

The modern Christian magistrate is the civil minister of God, but not the Mediatorial King or the Lord's Anointed, as were David and Solomon, which offices now reside in Christ, along with the Greater Prophet than Moses and the Great High Priest.

Therefore we don't need erroneous R2K teaching to refute the erroneous direct-line applications of Israel's Law to modern Christian states by "theonomy". 

There is one Kingdom with different aspects - e.g. ecclesiastical and civil and eschatalogical - to which the Law applies in different ways.


----------



## Scott1

Catechist said:


> 1). Christ is Lord of both kingdoms. He rules the kingdom of Christ (regnum gratiae) as the mediator of the covenant of grace, and he rules the civil kingdom (regnum potentiae) as sovereign Lord.



Richard, are these two summaries saying something substantively different?



Richard Tallach said:


> Christ rules the Church in a different way to that in which He rules over the nations. But He rules over all things as Mediatiorial Prophet, Priest and King unto His Church and for the sake of His Church.






Richard Tallach said:


> Amillennialists are wrong when they believe that Christians throughout the World can't enjoy the relative freedom from Statist persecution that has been largely enjoyed by Christians in the West for some time.



Also, does amillennialism really say can't, or does it allow for good and evil growing side by side until the end of the age? Doesn't it just say there will not be an overwhelming Christianization of all nations before His return?


----------



## MW

Catechist said:


> 1). Christ is Lord of both kingdoms. He rules the kingdom of Christ (regnum gratiae) as the mediator of the covenant of grace, and he rules the civil kingdom (regnum potentiae) as sovereign Lord.



Calvin's comment on Psalm 2:8 is quite explicit in attributing the rule of the world to Christ as He is exalted in human nature, and therefore to the whole person of the Mediator.



> 8. _Ask of me_. Christ, it is true, besought his Father (Joh 17:5) to “glorify him with the glory which he had with him before the world was;” yet the more obvious meaning is, that the Father will deny nothing to his Son which relates to the extension of his kingdom to the uttermost ends of the earth. But, in this wonderful matter, Christ is introduced as presenting himself before the Father with prayers, in order to illustrate the free liberality of God in conferring upon men the honour of constituting his own Son governor over the whole world. As the eternal Word of God, Christ, it is true, has always had in his hands by right sovereign authority and majesty, and as such can receive no accessions thereto; but still he is exalted in human nature, in which he took upon him the form of a servant. *This title*, therefore, *is not applied to him only as God*, *but is extended to the whole person of the Mediator*; for after Christ had emptied himself there was given to him a name which is above every name, that before him every knee should bow, (Php 2:9) David, as we know, after having obtained signal victories reigned over a large extent of territory, so that many nations became tributaries to him; but what is here said was not fulfilled in him. If we compare his kingdom with other monarchies it was confined within very narrow boundaries. Unless, therefore, we suppose this prophecy concerning the vast extent of kingdom to have been uttered in vain and falsely, *we must apply it to Christ*, *who alone has subdued the whole world to himself and embraced all lands and nations under his dominion*. Accordingly, here, as in many other places, the calling of the Gentiles is foretold, to prevent all from imagining that the Redeemer who was to be sent of God was king of one nation only. And if we now see his kingdom divided, diminished, and broken down, this proceeds from the wickedness of men, which renders them unworthy of being under a reign so happy and so desirable. But although the ingratitude of men hinders the kingdom of Christ from prospering it does not render this prediction of none effect, inasmuch as Christ collects the dispersed remnants of his people from all quarters, and in the midst of this wretched desolation, keeps them joined together by the sacred bond of faith, so that not one corner only, but the whole world is subjected to his authority. Besides, however insolently the ungodly may act, and however they may reject his sovereignty, they cannot, by their rebellion, destroy his authority and power.


----------



## Peairtach

Scott1 said:


> Catechist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1). Christ is Lord of both kingdoms. He rules the kingdom of Christ (regnum gratiae) as the mediator of the covenant of grace, and he rules the civil kingdom (regnum potentiae) as sovereign Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, are these two summaries saying something substantively different?
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christ rules the Church in a different way to that in which He rules over the nations. But He rules over all things as Mediatiorial Prophet, Priest and King unto His Church and for the sake of His Church.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Possibly not. But I believe the more usual way of expressing Christ's position is that He has been given all power in Heaven and in Earth and rules all things as Mediator unto His Church. 

Maybe Rev. Winzer or someone else can tease things out better, language wise. The whole World - Cosmos even - is Christ's One Kingdom. The real Q is what should be the relationship between the ecclesiastical and civil elements of that kingdom, at different stages in the development of the Church within a nation. Ideally the civil and ecclesiastical elements should be co-ordinate and recognise one another. The laws of the land should be shaped by the Moral Law and the moral principles contained in the judicial law and the ceremonial law. 

The civil realm should recognise Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords and Christianity as the one true religion. That need not (should not) involve persecution of e.g. Muslims and Roman Catholics as some (seem to) demand. 

There are ways of dealing with communities without persecuting them - e.g. don't let them into the country. Before the War there were few Muslims in UKGB; now there are about 1.5 - 2 million. 



> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amillennialists are wrong when they believe that Christians throughout the World can't enjoy the relative freedom from Statist persecution that has been largely enjoyed by Christians in the West for some time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, does amillennialism really say can't, or does it allow for good and evil growing side by side until the end of the age? Doesn't it just say there will not be an overwhelming Christianization of all nations before His return?
Click to expand...


Amillennialists don't seem to believe that the First Beast of the Unsanctified, and often Persecutory, Beastly State will be defeated in history, but only at Christ's return. Revelation 19 for them only speaks of Christ's return at the Eschaton, rather than Christ defeating the Beast by His Spirit, Word, Church and Providence in history. 

Amils (apparently?) teach that there will always be Christians persecuted by the State until the Eschaton, and the State is so incorrigible, it will never be truly reformed.


----------



## TimV

Great scholarship from Rev. W.


----------



## Catechist

armourbearer said:


> Calvin's comment on Psalm 2:8 is quite explicit in attributing the rule of the world to Christ as He is exalted in human nature, and therefore to the whole person of the Mediator.



I would not quibble to add another category to the Mediatorship as Calvin did here but prefer the way Gillespie and the WCF separated the terms better. 

The question is, whether you are asserting that Christ is Mediator in his exalted human nature as redeemer to both kingdoms (this is where one becomes a hypothetical universalist) or whether Christ is Mediator in his exalted human nature to separate kingdoms as non-redeemer and redeemer. 

If one insists that Christ the Mediator rules the world in his exalted human nature as redeemer only, or makes Calvin to say the same, then Calvin departs from Gillespie and the WCF. But Calvin does not depart in this manner and provides categories for the Son of God affirming that he rules one kingdom in a redemptive sense and the other kingdom in a non-redemptive sense. Thus a two kingdom view.

Now, without stifling Gillespie's words to fit a party line or reducing or limiting his words relative to a simple civil magistrate framework, his title says what it says, in a more clear manner than how Calvin states it, which effectively adds another "mediatorial" category outside the redemptive mediatorial work of Christ to the church. The two mediatorship view of Calvin is well documented. John Bolt, explains Calvin's social thought in this manner, "As mediator, the divine _Logos_ is not limited to his incarnate form even after the incarnation. He was mediator of creation prior to his incarnation and as mediator continues to sustain creation independent of his mediatorial work as reconciler of creation in the incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth." (Calvin Theological Journal 18, no. 1 (April 1983).

However, Gillespie's formulation and distinctions, like those in Chapter 8 of the WCF, where he insisted upon the same, confesses which great clarity, in no uncertain terms,





Catechist said:


> CHAPTER V.
> 
> OF A TWOFOLD KINGDOM OF Jesus Christ : A GENERAL KINGDOM, AS HE IS THE ETERNAL Son of God, THE HEAD OF ALL PRINCIPALITIES AND POWERS, REIGNING OVER ALL CREATURES ; AND A PARTICULAR KINGDOM, AS HE IS MEDIATOR REIGNING OVER THE CHURCH ONLY.



Now, I understand that W.D. J. McKay has argued for an element of discontinuity here between Calvin's view and those later in the 17th century but I think it is not so. The problem becomes more problematic when the mediatorship of Christ is thrown around indiscriminately and when that which belongs particularly to the church is applied to the state. This is why I think, Gillespie insisted on the clear words at Westminster. (See also, An Ecclesiastical Republic: Church Government in the writings of George Gillespie (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997), 56-57.


----------



## larryjf

Catechist said:


> The question is, whether you are asserting that Christ is Mediator in his exalted human nature as redeemer to both kingdoms (this is where one becomes a hypothetical universalist) or whether Christ is Mediator in his exalted human nature to separate kingdoms as non-redeemer and redeemer.



One question regarding your question...

When you use the terms "redeemer" and "non-redeemer" are you referring to this in the limited sense of salvation or in the broader sense of redeeming the creation and creative order as a whole?

In the broader sense of the meaning i have in mind Scripture such as:

_For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. (Rom 8:19-22)
_


----------



## mvdm

jwright82 said:


> I must say I don't really understand the disagreement here between R2k'ers and the other points of views represented, I don't know what name they are called by sorry. Unless R2k'ers believe that there are 2 different ethical codes for each kingdom, which I disagree with on theonomic grounds, I just can't pin down the exact differences in the two points of views, what are they?
> 
> ---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------
> 
> Just a thought does a R2K view believe that the state or culture is a neutral areana and therefore insist on pluralism? What would the other views think on this?



Non-R2k persons go by the name "Reformed". 

Critics see R2k as creating a functional neutral realm shared by believer and unbeliever. R2k-er's attempt to deny their so-called common realm is neutral; rather they say the norms are supplied by "natural law", not special revelation. R2k says the magistrate has no interest in the first table of the law, and conversely, the church as institute has no business speaking Biblical revelation to the magistrate. I would note that in a recent blog post, Darryl Hart accepts the possibility of the magistrate being "neutral" toward religion.

Reformed theology rejects these notions.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

{Moderator Hat On}
We need to strive much harder in this thread to show some charity toward others even if we are convinced that their views are not historically Reformed.

That goes for both sides.
{Hat off}


----------



## jwright82

mvdm said:


> Non-R2k persons go by the name "Reformed".


I'm sure they like being called Reformed too, but what I had in mind was schools of thought on this issue. I do not accept any notion of a nuetral seculer realm at all as well as an autonomous natural law that was interpreted apart from special revealation, a la Van Til. But no one representing this school of thought, R2K?, has gotten on here and gave their point of view, that I can tell, so I can't say what they think. 

It seems to me that one side views the culture/state as inherently good, and never in need of redemption, while one side views it as inherently bad, and always in need of redemption. If we accept that culture/state is creationaly good in its essence but the form of it that we fallen human beings develop it into can either be good or bad depending on God's soverighn common grace choice than we have a basis for agreement. So in some forms of culture/state we can adopt a strong 2K view and sit back and enjoy things, in others we will have to take a strong moral stand and seek to redeem the form of culture/state. My point is this, in my view both views are acceptable and may not always be the norm. I just don't understand what exactly is the disagreement?


----------



## mvdm

jwright82 said:


> My point is this, in my view both views are acceptable and may not always be the norm. I just don't understand what exactly is the disagreement?



One lynchpin difference is the Reformed view that special revelation/Word of God is normative outside the institutional church. Belgic 36, for example, makes it clear that God's Word sets normative limits on the magistrate. Canons of Dort III/IV Art. 4 clearly states that the spectacles of Scripture are necessary for ordering civil life aright. 

The comparative degrees of corruption in given societies does not change whether God's Word stands normative above them. Rather, that simply testifies to the comparative degrees of rebellion against his revealed will, and the areas of reformation needed. This should not be in dispute, but it is.

For getting a flavor of R2k, go to Hart's blog at oldlife.org. He has a category there called "two kingdom tuesdays".


----------



## Semper Fidelis

jwright82 said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non-R2k persons go by the name "Reformed".
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they like being called Reformed too, but what I had in mind was schools of thought on this issue. I do not accept any notion of a nuetral seculer realm at all as well as an autonomous natural law that was interpreted apart from special revealation, a la Van Til. But no one representing this school of thought, R2K?, has gotten on here and gave their point of view, that I can tell, so I can't say what they think.
> 
> It seems to me that one side views the culture/state as inherently good, and never in need of redemption, while one side views it as inherently bad, and always in need of redemption. If we accept that culture/state is creationaly good in its essence but the form of it that we fallen human beings develop it into can either be good or bad depending on God's soverighn common grace choice than we have a basis for agreement. So in some forms of culture/state we can adopt a strong 2K view and sit back and enjoy things, in others we will have to take a strong moral stand and seek to redeem the form of culture/state. My point is this, in my view both views are acceptable and may not always be the norm. I just don't understand what exactly is the disagreement?
Click to expand...

 
James,

I don't think that anyone would say that the culture/state is inherently good and not in need of redemption but that culture is not an _object_ of redemption. In other words they would say that it is not the Church's mission to redeem culture but to proclaim the Word and administer Sacraments to disciples in the Church. They're not saying that the world outside the Church is good - it is, admittedly, lost. Societies, then, are made up of the lost and the redeemed and the Church's mission is to be a place where the Gospel is proclaimed to bring men into the visible Kingdom of God.

As pertains to the governing of societies, however, they would see that as falling in a social sphere outside the Church's "sovereignty". I've never seen any denying that magistrates fall under Christ's lordship but the distinction rests with how that lordship operates. As Matthew Winzer pointed out, it is a distinction in _type_ of two kingdom view and not a choice between a two kingdom and a non-two kingdom view (as is common in reductionist arguments).

The R2K view, as I understand it, see civil law as operating under the rules of natural law (law written on men's hearts). There is an explicit assumption that whenever the magistrate attempts to ground its laws on the Word of God that this will inevitably lead to Christendom where the boundary between the Church and State is blurred and the spheres of sovereignty are intermingled. The State starts telling the Church what to preach or treats baptism as a citizenship requirement while the Church starts thinking it has the power of the Sword.

Where I see problems is an apparent paralysis for the Church to even speak to social evil because of a slippery slope (we don't want the Church to think it's got the power of the sword) argument. A wicked law (i.e. abortion or gay marriage) is really never to be the subject of any condemnation from the pulpit because it is, by definition, something the Church has no authority over in the civil sphere. 

As you see Matthew Winzer's presentation in contrast to this idea, he's not saying that Christ's relationship as Mediator is the _same_ for the Church as it is for the State but that the fact that the State operates under Christ's Sovereignty in His Person (which is as Mediator). Because it is under Christ, the State has only legitimate authority before God insofar as its rule is according to what it has been granted. It is not granted the authority to re-define marriage and there is not really any confusion about whether the Church has a responsibility to prophetically condemn unjust laws. This does not mean that the Church is telling the magistrate that the magistrate must be under the Church in order to govern but it is proclaiming to the magistrate to be the magistrate that God has commissioned Him to be under Christ's authority.

Insofar as I inaccurately represented either view I apologize for brevity or any inclarity of expression.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Catechist said:


> common grace institution



Can you please define this term?

---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> To avoid confusion it may be helpful to distinguish between the modern "dual two kingdom" view and the traditional "mutual two kingdom" view. It is in the interests of good historical theology to make note of the paradigm shift which has taken place.



Can you please explain?


----------



## mvdm

I believe the Van Drunen book linked above is just the "popularized" version of the more scholarly "Two Kingdoms and Natural Law" book he just had out late last year.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## MW

Catechist said:


> I would not quibble to add another category to the Mediatorship as Calvin did here but prefer the way Gillespie and the WCF separated the terms better.



There is no difference between them. Both maintained that the magistrate's authority is derived from God as the ruler over all things and both maintained that the magistrate is bound to acknowledge Christ the Mediator as Lord and Judge of all. These are two different issues, which you are failing to discern. The Confession asserts that the civil magistrate has a duty concerning the Christian religion, WCF 20.4, 23.3. Gillespie taught likewise. As did all the covenanters. They did so on the basis that Christ has all power given to Him, has power over all flesh, and is made Head over all things to the church. Please consider reading the commentaries of Dickson on Matthew 28:18-20, of Hutcheson on John 17:2, and of Fergusson on Ephesians 1:21-23. Christ as mediator rules over all things for the good of His church.



Catechist said:


> The question is, whether you are asserting that Christ is Mediator in his exalted human nature as redeemer to both kingdoms (this is where one becomes a hypothetical universalist) or whether Christ is Mediator in his exalted human nature to separate kingdoms as non-redeemer and redeemer.



Every man has an obligation to repent and believe the gospel. The gospel preaches that Christ is the Redeemer of sinners. It offers salvation to all who hear. The church is to make disciples of all nations on the basis that all power in heaven and earth is given to the risen Christ, Matthew 28:18-20. That is historic Calvinism, not hypothetical universalism. Any two kingdom theology which undermines these basic truths is clearly not teaching historic Calvinism.



Catechist said:


> If one insists that Christ the Mediator rules the world in his exalted human nature as redeemer only, or makes Calvin to say the same, then Calvin departs from Gillespie and the WCF. But Calvin does not depart in this manner and provides categories for the Son of God affirming that he rules one kingdom in a redemptive sense and the other kingdom in a non-redemptive sense. Thus a two kingdom view.



This is the absurdity to which dualists are bound to give their adherence, but it was not shared by Calvin, Gillespie or the historic reformed divines.



Catechist said:


> Now, without stifling Gillespie's words to fit a party line or reducing or limiting his words relative to a simple civil magistrate framework, his title says what it says, in a more clear manner than how Calvin states it, which effectively adds another "mediatorial" category outside the redemptive mediatorial work of Christ to the church. The two mediatorship view of Calvin is well documented. John Bolt, explains Calvin's social thought in this manner, "As mediator, the divine _Logos_ is not limited to his incarnate form even after the incarnation. He was mediator of creation prior to his incarnation and as mediator continues to sustain creation independent of his mediatorial work as reconciler of creation in the incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth." (Calvin Theological Journal 18, no. 1 (April 1983).



Gillespie's title should be taken in the context of the debate with Erastianism and should not be made to deny a fact he clearly affirmed. Although Calvin taught a mediatorship over creation he nevertheless affirms that Christ's rule over all pertains to the name which was given Him in view of His humiliation.


----------



## Peairtach

As Mediator Christ is in a relationship with the State as well as the Church - even if the particular State doesn't recognise Christ and Christianity.

But Christ the Mediator is in a very different relationship to the Church than to the State - whether or not it is a well-ordered Christian State. Christ rules the Church as the Head to the Body, as the Vine to the Branches and as the Bridegroom to the Bride. 

He rules the State, however, ultimately for the sake of the Church. In Christ's providence the State can be more or less Christianised. 

But it is Christ's preceptive will that the State recognise Him and Christianity, that it be more and more conformed to God's Word (properly interpreted), and that as part of their work here on Earth, Christians seek this as they are able and given opportunity.

It's a process in history and possiblities for the State to be more conformed to God's Word often/usually depend upon the size and health of the Church within the nation.

The Church must still be a faithful prophetic voice to the State even when the State and others don't seem to be listening, though.

The Church has to be as wise as a serpent, and much depends on what kind of State you're dealing with, the size of the Church within a nation, how strong and healthy that Church is, and how it pervades the nation or not.

The real Two Kingdoms are Christ's Kingdom - which is all the kingdoms of the World since the end of the Jewish Theocracy (Rev. 11:15) - and, secondly, the Devil and His angelic and human minions who are "squatting" (i.e. taking up illegal residence) in Christ's Kingdom. 

There are no carnal means for their defeat but God's Spirit, Word, Church and Providence is achieving it.


----------



## jwright82

mvdm said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is this, in my view both views are acceptable and may not always be the norm. I just don't understand what exactly is the disagreement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One lynchpin difference is the Reformed view that special revelation/Word of God is normative outside the institutional church. Belgic 36, for example, makes it clear that God's Word sets normative limits on the magistrate. Canons of Dort III/IV Art. 4 clearly states that the spectacles of Scripture are necessary for ordering civil life aright.
> 
> The comparative degrees of corruption in given societies does not change whether God's Word stands normative above them. Rather, that simply testifies to the comparative degrees of rebellion against his revealed will, and the areas of reformation needed. This should not be in dispute, but it is.
> 
> For getting a flavor of R2k, go to Hart's blog at oldlife.org. He has a category there called "two kingdom tuesdays".
Click to expand...

 
I agree with you on all counts, it is just that no representitive of the so called R2K has gotten here and stated their case so I shy away from any critiques of them but I appreciate that reference to Hart I will look up his blog, thanks!

---------- Post added at 08:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:27 PM ----------




Semper Fidelis said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non-R2k persons go by the name "Reformed".
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they like being called Reformed too, but what I had in mind was schools of thought on this issue. I do not accept any notion of a nuetral seculer realm at all as well as an autonomous natural law that was interpreted apart from special revealation, a la Van Til. But no one representing this school of thought, R2K?, has gotten on here and gave their point of view, that I can tell, so I can't say what they think.
> 
> It seems to me that one side views the culture/state as inherently good, and never in need of redemption, while one side views it as inherently bad, and always in need of redemption. If we accept that culture/state is creationaly good in its essence but the form of it that we fallen human beings develop it into can either be good or bad depending on God's soverighn common grace choice than we have a basis for agreement. So in some forms of culture/state we can adopt a strong 2K view and sit back and enjoy things, in others we will have to take a strong moral stand and seek to redeem the form of culture/state. My point is this, in my view both views are acceptable and may not always be the norm. I just don't understand what exactly is the disagreement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> James,
> 
> I don't think that anyone would say that the culture/state is inherently good and not in need of redemption but that culture is not an _object_ of redemption. In other words they would say that it is not the Church's mission to redeem culture but to proclaim the Word and administer Sacraments to disciples in the Church. They're not saying that the world outside the Church is good - it is, admittedly, lost. Societies, then, are made up of the lost and the redeemed and the Church's mission is to be a place where the Gospel is proclaimed to bring men into the visible Kingdom of God.
> 
> As pertains to the governing of societies, however, they would see that as falling in a social sphere outside the Church's "sovereignty". I've never seen any denying that magistrates fall under Christ's lordship but the distinction rests with how that lordship operates. As Matthew Winzer pointed out, it is a distinction in _type_ of two kingdom view and not a choice between a two kingdom and a non-two kingdom view (as is common in reductionist arguments).
> 
> The R2K view, as I understand it, see civil law as operating under the rules of natural law (law written on men's hearts). There is an explicit assumption that whenever the magistrate attempts to ground its laws on the Word of God that this will inevitably lead to Christendom where the boundary between the Church and State is blurred and the spheres of sovereignty are intermingled. The State starts telling the Church what to preach or treats baptism as a citizenship requirement while the Church starts thinking it has the power of the Sword.
> 
> Where I see problems is an apparent paralysis for the Church to even speak to social evil because of a slippery slope (we don't want the Church to think it's got the power of the sword) argument. A wicked law (i.e. abortion or gay marriage) is really never to be the subject of any condemnation from the pulpit because it is, by definition, something the Church has no authority over in the civil sphere.
> 
> As you see Matthew Winzer's presentation in contrast to this idea, he's not saying that Christ's relationship as Mediator is the _same_ for the Church as it is for the State but that the fact that the State operates under Christ's Sovereignty in His Person (which is as Mediator). Because it is under Christ, the State has only legitimate authority before God insofar as its rule is according to what it has been granted. It is not granted the authority to re-define marriage and there is not really any confusion about whether the Church has a responsibility to prophetically condemn unjust laws. This does not mean that the Church is telling the magistrate that the magistrate must be under the Church in order to govern but it is proclaiming to the magistrate to be the magistrate that God has commissioned Him to be under Christ's authority.
> 
> Insofar as I inaccurately represented either view I apologize for brevity or any inclarity of expression.
Click to expand...

 
There is not much to disagree with in your comments but I would widden the definition of redemption when applied to the state. I also can tell you that any argument based soley on natural law with no appeal outside itself is a logical fallacy because of history. We function withen natural law, we use natural law but it is not autonomous in and of itself, that we can base an argument upon it. If the the strong view of 2K, they may like that term better?, beleives differently on natural law than they can produce an argument contrary to my critique. I don't completly understand the strong view of 2K view so I cannot comment any further on that without a representitive of their school of thought on here to state their case.


----------



## MW

Willem van Oranje said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> To avoid confusion it may be helpful to distinguish between the modern "dual two kingdom" view and the traditional "mutual two kingdom" view. It is in the interests of good historical theology to make note of the paradigm shift which has taken place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please explain?
Click to expand...

 
All are agreed that the "two kingdoms" paradigm was worked out within the historical reality called "Christendom," which is nothing more than a friendly relationship between church and state as they both function to glorify God. The Gelasian theory of the two swords understood that civil and ecclesiastical power were distinct but connected. Calvin and the reformed tradition adopted and developed this paradigm with a view to properly distinguishing the different foundation and function of civil and ecclesiastical power, but in such a way as assumed that each worked for the mutual benefit of the other. We now have a situation where "Christendom" has broken down, or there is at least a theory of political philosophy which requires the church and state to be completely separate. Reformed people have addressed that situation from a number of different perspectives in the last century and a half. In the process the "two kingdoms" teaching has been lost or confused. Some in the reformed community are attempting to revitalise the two kingdom paradigm while insisting on the complete separation of church and state. Their starting point is contradictory to the starting point of Calvin and the refromed tradition. They believe the two kingdoms are two separate spheres of activity and require two different ethical approaches; they go so far as to say that principled pluralism is the most consistent outworking of the two kingdom paradigm and regard the "Christendom" ideal as incoherent. This is a paradigm shift. The very state of affairs which called two kingdom thought into existence is regarded as an incoherent and inconsistent application of two kingdom thought.


----------



## Kaalvenist

Two things:
1. I think it is plain wrong when R2K advocates try to claim Calvin, Turretin, Gillespie, and Rutherford for advocates of their views, when all of these men held the establishment principle and that magistrates are to uphold both tables, execute heretics, etc. It is one thing to say that Christ is over the nations only as Creator (not Mediator), another entirely to take it to the radical conclusion that magistrates as such are not bound to keep and enforce the Ten Commandments.

2. I find their position to posit a radical disjunction between "natural law" and the moral law summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments; or between general revelation and special revelation. It is the duty of all people (including magistrates as magistrates) to obey the revealed will of God. His expectation for any indivual or institution can be no more than what is actually revealed; but it can also be no less than what is actually revealed. He will judge individuals and magistrates in an isolated South American village, with no contact with the outside world, on the basis of what has been revealed to them thus far. The moment that a Bible is brought into their midst, their standard for judgment has been raised (both as individuals and magistrates).

I sometimes joke with my Baptist friends about how my daughter is Presbyterian, but their children are Pagans until they decide for themselves; but just as Anabaptism in the church makes Christians treat their children as Pagans, so Anabaptism in the state makes Christians be ruled by Pagans (regardless of if those magistrates are actually Christians).


----------



## Catechist

Willem van Oranje said:


> common grace institution
> Can you please define this term?



The Distinction Between the Two Kingdoms (see #7 below) taken from 
Riddleblog - The Latest Post - A Two Kingdoms Primer*


1) Christ's Kingdom

This is a spiritual kingdom and is ruled by Christ in his mediatorial office, in and through the historical manifestation of the covenant of grace (the church)

The Civil Kingdom

Here we speak of human government (the state) and Christ's rule over the earth and its creatures (the kingdom of power), according to God’s divine purpose for humanity (his eternal decree)

__________________________________


2) Christ's Kingdom

The charter of Christ’s kingdom is the “Great Commission” (cf. Matthew 28:16-20)

The Civil Kingdom

The foundation of the civil kingdom is the “Cultural Mandate” (Genesis 1:28' Genesis 9:6-7)

___________________________________

3) Christ's Kingdom

The church is given the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:19). The kingdom is closed to the unrepentant and heretics through church discipline

The Civil Kingdom

The state is given the sword (Romans 13:4). Those who break the law are subject to civil and criminal justice

___________________________________


4) Christ's Kingdom

Requires “spiritual discernment” (1 Corinthians 1:13 ff; 2:14)

The Civil Kingdom

Requires the light of nature (i.e., general revelation--Romans 2:14-15)

____________________________________


5) Christ's Kingdom

Christ’s kingdom is manifest on earth through the ordinary means of grace and through those biblically mandated activities of the church (i.e., evangelism, discipleship, and diaconal ministries)

The Civil Kingdom

The civil kingdom is manifest in all human cultural endeavors and governing institutions. In the civil kingdom, Christian citizens seek to be salt and light as they fulfill their callings and vocations along with their non-Christian neighbors


____________________________________


6) Christ's Kingdom

The focus is upon our heavenly citizenship (Philippians 3:20-21)–which is realized in our membership in Christ’s church. The church is the assembly of Christian believers

The Civil Kingdom

The focus is upon our national citizenship (i.e., the country of our birth, or of which we are presently citizens). As such, this kingdom includes all people (Christians and non-Christians alike) who are citizens of a given nation/society


____________________________________


7) Christ Kingdom

Entrance is granted into this kingdom only by virtue of regeneration. The focus is upon redemptive grace–God saving his people from the guilt and power of sin

The Civil Kingdom

Entrance into the civil kingdom is granted by virtue of birth (or naturalization). The focus here is upon common grace–God providing for all of his creatures

____________________________________


8) Christ's Kingdom

As citizens of Christ’s kingdom, we live under the authority of Christ as revealed in Scripture (special revelation)

The Civil Kingdom

In the civil kingdom, we live under the authority of the laws of the land (i.e., general revelation and natural law)


----------



## Scott1

Catechist said:


> quote from Mr. Riddlebarger's blog:
> 
> 3) Christ's Kingdom
> 
> The church is given the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:19). The kingdom is closed to the unrepentant and heretics through church discipline



To this we might add the kingdom is opened by those keys in the sense of the church preaching, teaching the Gospel, and the Word of God.


How do we describe the view that is not theonomy, theocracy or establishmentarian, but:

1) sees everything under Christ's control,
2) that the church influences the culture (including government) by discipling people who go out and affect it
3) that the church can speak out on moral issues (to government and socieity at large)
4) that the church is not to prioritize a "social gospel"


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> To avoid confusion it may be helpful to distinguish between the modern "dual two kingdom" view and the traditional "mutual two kingdom" view. It is in the interests of good historical theology to make note of the paradigm shift which has taken place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All are agreed that the "two kingdoms" paradigm was worked out within the historical reality called "Christendom," which is nothing more than a friendly relationship between church and state as they both function to glorify God. The Gelasian theory of the two swords understood that civil and ecclesiastical power were distinct but connected. Calvin and the reformed tradition adopted and developed this paradigm with a view to properly distinguishing the different foundation and function of civil and ecclesiastical power, but in such a way as assumed that each worked for the mutual benefit of the other. We now have a situation where "Christendom" has broken down, or there is at least a theory of political philosophy which requires the church and state to be completely separate. Reformed people have addressed that situation from a number of different perspectives in the last century and a half. In the process the "two kingdoms" teaching has been lost or confused. Some in the reformed community are attempting to revitalise the two kingdom paradigm while insisting on the complete separation of church and state. Their starting point is contradictory to the starting point of Calvin and the refromed tradition. They believe the two kingdoms are two separate spheres of activity and require two different ethical approaches; they go so far as to say that principled pluralism is the most consistent outworking of the two kingdom paradigm and regard the "Christendom" ideal as incoherent. This is a paradigm shift. The very state of affairs which called two kingdom thought into existence is regarded as an incoherent and inconsistent application of two kingdom thought.
Click to expand...

 
Concise and helpful articulation. Perhaps we can advance this discussion if we discuss how the classic 2K view would operate in our society today.

Often I find these discussions break down because there's the situation as it is today with Magistrates who are Godless and the situation as it was at the time of the writing of the Confessions - an establishmentarian State with magistrates who are Church-going Christians and governing distinctively from but in cooperation with the Church. In its ideal there was never supposed to be a confusion between authority although it happened but that does not mean that, by definition, it is a wrong 2K view simply because sinful men abuse it.

If we fast-forward to today, we find ourselves in a pretty fractured Church environment and a government that can be described as everything except God-fearing or Christian. The State religion is pluralism and those who name Christ often find themselves having to worry more about defending themselves from the State over-stepping its authority and cannot even conceive how the State they know would compliment their activity.

In other words, the principle of the matter is often lost because those that argue for a classic 2K view remain in the realm of "theory". The government and the Church are almost viewed as illegitimate until we return to the halcyon days of the 16th and 17th centuries.

How does a classic 2K view operate as a "practical" theology in a pluralistic culture and society? How does a Church operate within the same? How does a Christian submit to governing authorities rather than simply complaining that it was great "...way back when..."?

I'm not accusing you of complaining. I think you have an interesting perspective as a non-American who probably finds it amusing to see Americans trying to establish a Reformed confession in a country founded on the principle of antidisestablismentarianism. 

It seems that the reason that the R2K view resonates is that it sort of figures out a way to "operate" in today's culture. It doesn't deal only in the theory of the way the world might be but the way it is today. American Reformed people live in and among their neighbors and have to figure out a way to cooperate where possible and stand in opposition where necessary. There's also an understanding that the Church does not have the sphere of governing as its responsibility and we've all witnessed Churches who neglect Word and Sacrament and become political action committees.

I find myself resonating with much of the R2K stuff simply because it speaks to our present climate and most of the classic 2K folks tend to focus on the past and, quite frankly, many who concentrate on the present only seem to be able to complain about things without offering any roadmap on how to walk in this present age.

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

What is below is some helpful analysis. I would simply add that even in today's climate, a degree of cooperation is necessary, and everyone recognizes this. The church needs the protection of the civil magistrate. This is provided in the USA in the form of police protection as needed, and the enforcement of the law against those who commit crimes directed against the church. In addition, there is a form of financial support in the American system, where donations to churches are tax-free, which of course encourages offerings. There are many other ways in which the state cooperates with and helps the church of Jesus Christ and her ministers.

As far as the church cooperating the state, I could also provide many modern examples of our civil government in its various branches reaching out to get input from the church on various moral and religious matters as they pertain to the law. There are also cases where the church provides much-needed counsel to the state, unsolicited.





Semper Fidelis said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> To avoid confusion it may be helpful to distinguish between the modern "dual two kingdom" view and the traditional "mutual two kingdom" view. It is in the interests of good historical theology to make note of the paradigm shift which has taken place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All are agreed that the "two kingdoms" paradigm was worked out within the historical reality called "Christendom," which is nothing more than a friendly relationship between church and state as they both function to glorify God. The Gelasian theory of the two swords understood that civil and ecclesiastical power were distinct but connected. Calvin and the reformed tradition adopted and developed this paradigm with a view to properly distinguishing the different foundation and function of civil and ecclesiastical power, but in such a way as assumed that each worked for the mutual benefit of the other. We now have a situation where "Christendom" has broken down, or there is at least a theory of political philosophy which requires the church and state to be completely separate. Reformed people have addressed that situation from a number of different perspectives in the last century and a half. In the process the "two kingdoms" teaching has been lost or confused. Some in the reformed community are attempting to revitalise the two kingdom paradigm while insisting on the complete separation of church and state. Their starting point is contradictory to the starting point of Calvin and the refromed tradition. They believe the two kingdoms are two separate spheres of activity and require two different ethical approaches; they go so far as to say that principled pluralism is the most consistent outworking of the two kingdom paradigm and regard the "Christendom" ideal as incoherent. This is a paradigm shift. The very state of affairs which called two kingdom thought into existence is regarded as an incoherent and inconsistent application of two kingdom thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concise and helpful articulation. Perhaps we can advance this discussion if we discuss how the classic 2K view would operate in our society today.
> 
> Often I find these discussions break down because there's the situation as it is today with Magistrates who are Godless and the situation as it was at the time of the writing of the Confessions - an establishmentarian State with magistrates who are Church-going Christians and governing distinctively from but in cooperation with the Church. In its ideal there was never supposed to be a confusion between authority although it happened but that does not mean that, by definition, it is a wrong 2K view simply because sinful men abuse it.
> 
> If we fast-forward to today, we find ourselves in a pretty fractured Church environment and a government that can be described as everything except God-fearing or Christian. The State religion is pluralism and those who name Christ often find themselves having to worry more about defending themselves from the State over-stepping its authority and cannot even conceive how the State they know would compliment their activity.
> 
> In other words, the principle of the matter is often lost because those that argue for a classic 2K view remain in the realm of "theory". The government and the Church are almost viewed as illegitimate until we return to the halcyon days of the 16th and 17th centuries.
> 
> How does a classic 2K view operate as a "practical" theology in a pluralistic culture and society? How does a Church operate within the same? How does a Christian submit to governing authorities rather than simply complaining that it was great "...way back when..."?
> 
> I'm not accusing you of complaining. I think you have an interesting perspective as a non-American who probably finds it amusing to see Americans trying to establish a Reformed confession in a country founded on the principle of antidisestablismentarianism.
> 
> It seems that the reason that the R2K view resonates is that it sort of figures out a way to "operate" in today's culture. It doesn't deal only in the theory of the way the world might be but the way it is today. American Reformed people live in and among their neighbors and have to figure out a way to cooperate where possible and stand in opposition where necessary. There's also an understanding that the Church does not have the sphere of governing as its responsibility and we've all witnessed Churches who neglect Word and Sacrament and become political action committees.
> 
> I find myself resonating with much of the R2K stuff simply because it speaks to our present climate and most of the classic 2K folks tend to focus on the past and, quite frankly, many who concentrate on the present only seem to be able to complain about things without offering any roadmap on how to walk in this present age.
> 
> Hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...


----------



## py3ak

Semper Fidelis said:


> antidisestablismentarianism



I think you meant disestablishmentarianism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

py3ak said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> antidisestablismentarianism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you meant disestablishmentarianism.
Click to expand...

 
OK, OK. But at least I got to use a long word.


----------



## Scott1

I think what we need is a 1.5K view, with nuance.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Scott1 said:


> I think what we need is a 1.5K view, with nuance.


 
Would this look like the 2.5 Office view?


----------



## mvdm

Semper Fidelis said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> To avoid confusion it may be helpful to distinguish between the modern "dual two kingdom" view and the traditional "mutual two kingdom" view. It is in the interests of good historical theology to make note of the paradigm shift which has taken place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All are agreed that the "two kingdoms" paradigm was worked out within the historical reality called "Christendom," which is nothing more than a friendly relationship between church and state as they both function to glorify God. The Gelasian theory of the two swords understood that civil and ecclesiastical power were distinct but connected. Calvin and the reformed tradition adopted and developed this paradigm with a view to properly distinguishing the different foundation and function of civil and ecclesiastical power, but in such a way as assumed that each worked for the mutual benefit of the other. We now have a situation where "Christendom" has broken down, or there is at least a theory of political philosophy which requires the church and state to be completely separate. Reformed people have addressed that situation from a number of different perspectives in the last century and a half. In the process the "two kingdoms" teaching has been lost or confused. Some in the reformed community are attempting to revitalise the two kingdom paradigm while insisting on the complete separation of church and state. Their starting point is contradictory to the starting point of Calvin and the refromed tradition. They believe the two kingdoms are two separate spheres of activity and require two different ethical approaches; they go so far as to say that principled pluralism is the most consistent outworking of the two kingdom paradigm and regard the "Christendom" ideal as incoherent. This is a paradigm shift. The very state of affairs which called two kingdom thought into existence is regarded as an incoherent and inconsistent application of two kingdom thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concise and helpful articulation. Perhaps we can advance this discussion if we discuss how the classic 2K view would operate in our society today.
> 
> Often I find these discussions break down because there's the situation as it is today with Magistrates who are Godless and the situation as it was at the time of the writing of the Confessions - an establishmentarian State with magistrates who are Church-going Christians and governing distinctively from but in cooperation with the Church. In its ideal there was never supposed to be a confusion between authority although it happened but that does not mean that, by definition, it is a wrong 2K view simply because sinful men abuse it.
> 
> If we fast-forward to today, we find ourselves in a pretty fractured Church environment and a government that can be described as everything except God-fearing or Christian. The State religion is pluralism and those who name Christ often find themselves having to worry more about defending themselves from the State over-stepping its authority and cannot even conceive how the State they know would compliment their activity.
> 
> In other words, the principle of the matter is often lost because those that argue for a classic 2K view remain in the realm of "theory". The government and the Church are almost viewed as illegitimate until we return to the halcyon days of the 16th and 17th centuries.
> 
> How does a classic 2K view operate as a "practical" theology in a pluralistic culture and society? How does a Church operate within the same? How does a Christian submit to governing authorities rather than simply complaining that it was great "...way back when..."?
> 
> I'm not accusing you of complaining. I think you have an interesting perspective as a non-American who probably finds it amusing to see Americans trying to establish a Reformed confession in a country founded on the principle of antidisestablismentarianism.
> 
> It seems that the reason that the R2K view resonates is that it sort of figures out a way to "operate" in today's culture. It doesn't deal only in the theory of the way the world might be but the way it is today. American Reformed people live in and among their neighbors and have to figure out a way to cooperate where possible and stand in opposition where necessary. There's also an understanding that the Church does not have the sphere of governing as its responsibility and we've all witnessed Churches who neglect Word and Sacrament and become political action committees.
> 
> I find myself resonating with much of the R2K stuff simply because it speaks to our present climate and most of the classic 2K folks tend to focus on the past and, quite frankly, many who concentrate on the present only seem to be able to complain about things without offering any roadmap on how to walk in this present age.
> 
> Hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...

 
These are good points. However, my assessment is just the opposite, in that it is R2k has little plan to deal with the messiness of our pluralistic society, except to draw an impermeable line between the church and state. 

The confessional approach retains a straightforward plan that is applicable even in our pluralistic society, i.e., the church as institute may speak special revelation on a particular issue in the civil realm. This played out recently at our URC Synod on the question of addressing the military on its "don't ask, don't tell" policy. R2k arguments were made from the floor against doing so. The Synod overwhelmingly rejected that argument and approved sending a letter which gave Biblical {not natural law} witness on the topic. As I've said before, these principles should not be in dispute, even while acknowledging that they may be difficult to apply under a given circumstance.


----------



## jwright82

Could a R2K view be pushed into an acceptance of rampent social sin on the grounds of their strict seperation of the two kingdoms and the beleif that biblical law only affects christians? Or to put it another way how would an advocate of this view argue against acceptance of rampant social sin on their assumptions?

I don't like how this view, if anyone actually holds to it, seems to accept a nature/grace dualism that I don't really like. They also seem to bifuricate human beings into part religous part whatever else which only led, in my opinion, as a view, along with the nature/grace dualism, to seculerism and John Ralws' views that have pushed religion back into the cave they want us in. We are not allowed to bring our religous convictions into the public square and how would this view argue for allowing these religous views to be held in the public square?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Mark,

I'm not saying that there are no proponents of a differing type of 2K view but that, when it comes to articulating a full-orbed view, they often remain theoretical.

You present an example but that's not an articulation of a principle. Instead of presenting a positive case for how your view would look in our society you simply point out that the R2K is defective - this is where I see most energy directed rather than building a full-orbed practical presentation of how the principle operates in our culture.

I'm not necessarily advocating the R2K view but its proponents have articulated how they would deal with (or not) our government according to the principles of their view. It's not all a presentation of how bad others' views are.


----------



## tcalbrecht

mvdm said:


> These are good points. However, my assessment is just the opposite, in that it is R2k has little plan to deal with the messiness of our pluralistic society, *except to draw an impermeable line between the church and state*.


 
Perhaps inconsistently. I'm perplexed by the "Megan's Law" policy adopted by Rev. Riddlebarger's church documented here, and its prima facie inconsistency with R2K.


----------



## mvdm

Semper Fidelis said:


> Mark,
> 
> I'm not saying that there are no proponents of a differing type of 2K view but that, when it comes to articulating a full-orbed view, they often remain theoretical.
> 
> You present an example but that's not an articulation of a principle. Instead of presenting a positive case for how your view would look in our society you simply point out that the R2K is defective - this is where I see most energy directed rather than building a full-orbed practical presentation of how the principle operates in our culture.
> 
> I'm not necessarily advocating the R2K view but its proponents have articulated how they would deal with (or not) our government according to the principles of their view. It's not all a presentation of how bad others' views are.



I agree just stating the defects of the opposing view is insufficient, although examining them is helpful to elucidate the alternative. However, critics of R2k have in fact set forth their full orbed view. {see eg. Kloosterman's Christian Renewal series}. One could easily mine Kuyper's Lectures on Calvinism for Reformed worldview refutation of it. My posts here were not intended to be "full orbed" responses, but key bits/morsels to answer some of the questions I saw arising.

Also, I don't believe I've just said R2k is defective. I've stated both a postive principle {the church speaks normative special revelation to the civil realm} and a practical application of that principle {URC spoke to the military on "DADT"}. I can't help it if the R2k position is the negation of that principle.


----------



## Peairtach

The practical possibilities for the recognition of Christ and Christianity by the State, vary from country to country and the condition of the Church in each country.

The Church is slowly growing like a Great Mountain (or Great Balloon) in each country of the World. 

If the Mountain in a particular nation is currently merely a stone, it would be a pyrrhic victory for the Christians to seize the reigns of power and declare a Christian state.

Christians and the Church have to prioritise according to the practicalities of the situation, even if they believe that the State is under a moral obligation to pass certain laws and recognise Christ and Christianity. But the social, economic and political dimensions of Christianity shouldn't be forgotten but flow out of the evangelistic. 

The Church has to be in a position of overwhelming ascendency for establishmentarianism to be a viable or worthwhile option or even to be possible in a democracy by democratic means.

The salvation of souls is more urgent than establishmentarianism and the more souls that are saved, the closer one gets to an establishment.


----------



## Catechist

tcalbrecht said:


> Perhaps inconsistently. I'm perplexed by the "Megan's Law" policy adopted by Rev. Riddlebarger's church documented here, and its prima facie inconsistency with R2K.



Don't think it's an inconsistency - but a practical application of a type of the two kingdom view. Here the _moral_ and enlightened policies of a church or Christian, via special revelation, participate with the _natural_ policies of the state - Megan's Law. Though the civil sphere is naturally in an unenlightened state, via general revelation, they can get it right. Being a right and good policy, the church here supports the judgment of the state toward a common goal recognizing its policy is good.

In the opposite direction, the state applies itself to the church _circa sacra _within the two kingdoms.

Now for the rub, if living in the times of a Reformed Establishment based in true religion, both spheres would act _morally_ and both spheres would be enlightened and act according to the first table of the law, the civil sphere thereby being enabled to apply special revelation due to good providence (though the state is not naturally endowed with special revelation, though if their constitution is Christian they would be required to live by it - and ultimately are required to live by it, similar to the reprobate who has no excuse)

Yet, with respect to the civil sphere's natural foundation: it is natively natural, general, and non-redemptive based in creation (not mediatorial). 

Therefore all R2K and C2K is not created equal: Some is RADICAL, some is RADical, and some is radical and some is CLASSIC, some is CLAssic and some is classic. 

I like what Calvin said, in his Institutes 3.19.15. “The Two Kingdoms” here are good starting principles based in his section on Christian Freedom. 

The two kingdoms paradigm is dynamic and thus the application follows.

Okay, you can now all throw stones. I'm sure this pleases nobody who holds a static party line.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm not accusing you of complaining. I think you have an interesting perspective as a non-American who probably finds it amusing to see Americans trying to establish a Reformed confession in a country founded on the principle of antidisestablismentarianism.


 
We face all the same problems here in Australia, and we also have unique challenges as a result of British social structures. Western countries as a whole are facing the onslaught of unprincipled pluralism. It has one advantage. The removal of social privilege serves to try the reins and to discover who are truly the Lord's. But this is in the hand of providence alone. So far as the church's commission is concerned, societal territory which had been won through great labour and suffering of the saints is being taken away. Are we to sit back and say that the State has a right to do what it will with its own? Surely not! The State is not invested with unconditional sovereignty but is bound by the law of the Sovereign Who has instituted it.

I should note, Christian establishmentarianism does not offer any solutions to the problems of a godless society apart from the gospel. It does not suggest for a moment that political institutions are the appointed means of advancing Christ's spiritual kingdom. The government's role as a government is to protect the citizens of the territory it governs and to promote their temporal well-being. Where the gospel has so far advanced as to subject a territory to Christ it is the duty of the government of that territory to protect its Christian citizens and make laws for their temporal well-being. It follows as a matter of course that the laws enacted by such a government seeking to fulfil its God-ordained function to the glory of God would contain a distinctively Christian ethos.

The strength of Christian establishmentarianism lies in its refusal to accept the godlessness of society as normal; it functions with the conviction that nations are to be discipled and nations are to bow down before the Lord. This conviction should not lead us to trust in princes whose breath is in their nostriils. It should throw us upon our knees to pray in earnest that the Lord of heaven and earth would open doors and hearts and advance His kingdom through the means of His appointment. The weapons of our warfare are only mighty through God.


----------



## Scott1

I'm finding this relevant to the topics in the discussion- a study of the book of Judges where the Israelites lived in a spiritually "pluralistic" society between the time of strong leadership of Moses and Joshua and then that of the Kings, e.g. David.

A time somewhat like our own, and one worth studying how God's people live in such a situation, a parallel to our own times.


----------



## dudley

Catechist said:


> After reading many posts on PB that seem to confuse the two kingdoms or deny the two kingdoms, I thought the outline offered here by Kim Riddlebarger might be a help.
> 
> "Here's a brief primer on the basics of the Reformed doctrine of the two kingdoms.
> 
> As you consider the distinctions between these two kingdoms, please keep in mind the following presuppositions upon which the distinctions are based:
> 
> 1). Christ is Lord of both kingdoms. He rules the kingdom of Christ (regnum gratiae) as the mediator of the covenant of grace, and he rules the civil kingdom (regnum potentiae) as sovereign Lord.
> 
> 2). Every Christian is simultaneously a citizen of both kingdoms (Philippians 3:20; Romans 13:1-7).
> 
> 3). The state is a post-fall, common grace institution given by God for the administration of justice and to restrain evil (Genesis 4:18 ff; Romans 13:1-7).
> 
> 4). Non-Christians do not accept or acknowledge Christ's Lordship over the civil kingdom. This is the basis for the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian ways of thinking and doing. The failure to acknowledge Christ's Lordship renders one guilty before God (Romans 1:18-25), but does not invalidate the civil kingdom or the non-Christian's place in it.
> 
> 5). While Paul calls Rome a minister of God (Romans 13:4), a generation later John describes that same empire as the beast, empowered by the dragon to persecute the people of God (Revelation 13). The Christian's confession that "Jesus is Lord," is likewise a confession that Caesar isn't. Christians must be cognizant that the kingdom of Christ can be seen as a threat to the power of the state. In fact, throughout Scripture, the state is the dragon's weapon of last resort against Christ and his kingdom.
> 
> 
> 6). From the time Adam was cast from Eden, God has intended the kingdom of Christ (the church) to dwell and advance in the midst of the civil kingdom (the world). This is the foundation for the missionary endeavors of the church, as well as a hedge against either utopianism (an over-realized eschatology) or escapism (i.e., monasticism)."
> 
> For the distinctions between the two kingdoms (see more here)
> 
> Riddleblog - The Latest Post - A Two Kingdoms Primer*



To Catechist thank you for this piece. It makes sense, as does all the Reformed Protestant thology!


----------



## mvdm

armourbearer said:


> The government's role as a government is to protect the citizens of the territory it governs and to promote their temporal well-being. Where the gospel has so far advanced as to subject a territory to Christ it is the duty of the government of that territory to protect its Christian citizens and make laws for their temporal well-being. It follows as a matter of course that the laws enacted by such a government seeking to fulfil its God-ordained function to the glory of God would contain a distinctively Christian ethos.



A "distinctively Christian ethos". Well put. This is a good summary statement of Belgic 36. Government serves to advance God's kingdom. This naturally has a relationship to both tables of the law. R2k is fairly consistent in its insistence that government has no interest in the first table of the law, and to think otherwise makes one a Constantinian theocrat or theonomist. But that argument quickly crumbles when it is pointed out, for example, that the courts of our land require all citizens to adhere to the 3rd commandment.


----------



## jwright82

Scott1 said:


> I'm finding this relevant to the topics in the discussion- a study of the book of Judges where the Israelites lived in a spiritually "pluralistic" society between the time of strong leadership of Moses and Joshua and then that of the Kings, e.g. David.
> 
> A time somewhat like our own, and one worth studying how God's people live in such a situation, a parallel to our own times.


 
Nothing can be equal to scripture but some, the reformed thinker James K. A. Smith and adherents to Radical Orthodoxy, have pointed out that we live in a time like St. Augustine a pagan/pluralistic society and have looked to him for inspiration in how to be a christian in our somewhat post-christian society.


----------



## Peairtach

Western Christendom and also Modernism are in an advanced state of decay and collapse, as the Roman Empire once was. 

But in the end it won't turn out for the defeat of Christianity but for its strengthening and advance. 

If we're spared, we may well see even darker days in Europe, North America and the Antipodes and elsewhere, before then.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Catechist said:


> Okay, you can now all throw stones. I'm sure this pleases nobody who holds a static party line.


What purpose does this serve? This discussion has been mostly civil and I'm trying to keep it that way. People can disagree without throwing stones or baiting others to do the same.


----------



## Christusregnat

Here is a representative quotation of historic Reformed views of the two kingdoms:



> Wherefore, whoever proposes the happiness of men as the chief end in describing official duties, must necessarily miss the mark. Since certainly we say that God himself is to be revered by all, and that all duties, whether public or private, are to redound to his praise and glory. This world is indeed the likeness of a single city, as if encircled by the Ocean as by bulwarks, in which all men are rightly to bring about this one city, which is to proclaim the praises of God. But, now, since the days of Cain and Abel (as Augustine teaches) men have been inticed into two cities by the deceptions of Satan, even these two which are diametrically opposed to each other. One, for instance, seeks for her own profit, and depends on her own wisdom. God is either despised by this city, or deceiving herself by her corrupt nature, she maintains a fictitious worship. And therefore she is either entirely deceitful, fashioning whatever religion she can upon such vulgar causes as she can contrive; or even if there are some among them not so utterly senseless and insane, yet they still regard him (from whom they quake in fear, or from whom they anticipate some very great blessing) as being appeased and propitious toward themselves. Such are truly lunatics, who are capable convincing themselves that God is more dimsighted than themselves in choosing and testing his friends. The other, in truth, is a city totally devoted to its Builder, to such an extent that she should consider nothing to be worthy of doing, except such matters as are directed by his voice and command. Likewise, whether public or private, her pursuits are devoted to increasing the glory and praise of God. Moreover, I have displayed that she is not able to be distracted from this, and we will, in truth, say a little more concerning this matter, that we may not only understand the Magistrate's peculiar duty, but also the unique function of that city's duties.



Theodore Beza, _Concerning the Punishment of Heretics by the Civil Magistrate_ 

Note: the two kingdoms are NOT the church and state, but the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the devil. Note also that civil duties are part of the "one City."


----------



## mvdm

tcalbrecht said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are good points. However, my assessment is just the opposite, in that it is R2k has little plan to deal with the messiness of our pluralistic society, *except to draw an impermeable line between the church and state*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps inconsistently. I'm perplexed by the "Megan's Law" policy adopted by Rev. Riddlebarger's church documented here, and its prima facie inconsistency with R2K.
Click to expand...


I don't believe it is inconsistent. The state implemented a law governing supervision of individuals with criminal history and this church submitted by implementing the policy. R2k heavily emphasizes our duty to submit to governing authorities. 

The rub comes in if the law required the church to supervise such persons in a way contrary to God's Word. The R2k church could stay consistent with its
R2kt and stand mute before the magistrate, or abandon its R2k and testify to the magistrate why they will not submit on Biblical grounds.


----------



## Catechist

Semper Fidelis said:


> Catechist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you can now all throw stones. I'm sure this pleases nobody who holds a static party line.
> 
> 
> 
> What purpose does this serve? This discussion has been mostly civil and I'm trying to keep it that way. People can disagree without throwing stones or baiting others to do the same.
Click to expand...

 

Agreed. 

Just some of the people that have posted on this thread know positions that I tended toward previously as a strict covenanter (SL&C type) and an Establishmentarian. So the purpose of the statment was said to them in humor (probably a better word to use than "humor" so hope you're not offended) noting in my post #61 that I have not given up on the Establishment Principle under certain national social circumstances, yet notably, holding a foundational two kingdom view. 

Therefore, mostly pointing the finger at myself because I know how I used to present myself as one who held to the "original confessional position" in a static manner.

I should keep the broader audience in mind. Thanks for pointing this out, I guess I should start using the emotion smileys if not always speaking pointedly, serious.


----------



## Scott1

To what extent may the church "speak to" moral issues in the public realm (e.g. abortion, sexual immorality)-
in the ordinary course of teaching, extraordinarily, not at all.

Does the church have a right to call on the magistrate to "do right"? Ever? Extraordinarily? In the ordinary course?

Is any one of these views saying that a broad public morals issue cannot be addressed because it is in the public arena by virtue of legislation or common practice?

Also, are we merging 2k and R2k views in the way they are being discussed in this post?

Or, can one explain the key difference between the two?


----------



## tcalbrecht

mvdm said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are good points. However, my assessment is just the opposite, in that it is R2k has little plan to deal with the messiness of our pluralistic society, *except to draw an impermeable line between the church and state*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps inconsistently. I'm perplexed by the "Megan's Law" policy adopted by Rev. Riddlebarger's church documented here, and its prima facie inconsistency with R2K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe it is inconsistent. The state implemented a law governing supervision of individuals with criminal history and this church submitted by implementing the policy. R2k heavily emphasizes our duty to submit to governing authorities.
> 
> The rub comes in if the law required the church to supervise such persons in a way contrary to God's Word. The R2k church could stay consistent with its
> R2kt and stand mute before the magistrate, or abandon its R2k and testify to the magistrate why they will not submit on Biblical grounds.
Click to expand...

 
Inconsistent in that they permitted the state to interfere generally with the internal preaching of the gospel by dictating how they are to treat a certain class of attendees. If the church already had a policy in place that was fully informed by the Word of God prior to the enactment of "Megan's law", that would be a different matter. But to merely react to the state without biblical mandate seems inconsistent.


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> Note: the two kingdoms are NOT the church and state, but the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the devil. Note also that civil duties are part of the "one City."


 
That is a summary of Beza's quotation but the very fact that the two cities are diametrically opposed to each other suffices to show that this quotation is not setting out to teach on the two kingdoms. The two kingdoms are both derived from, and serve for the glory of, God.


----------



## littlepeople

I am really a blank slate on this topic. I have picked up that it is pretty hotly contested these days (at least in the blogoshpere) My head keeps swimming reading through all the posts. To quote Painted Jaguar "You are making my spots ache, and besides, I didn't want your advice at all. I only wanted to know which of you is Hedgehog and which is Tortoise." Could someone tell me if the following statement would be R2k, 2k, or something else? It will help me get my bearings. Thanks



> Wherefore, if we are cruelly tormented by a savage, if we are
> rapaciously pillaged by an avaricious or luxurious, if we are neglected by a sluggish, if, in
> short, we are persecuted for righteousness’ sake by an impious and sacrilegious prince,
> let us first call up the remembrance of our faults, which doubtless the Lord is chastising
> by such scourges. In this way humility will curb our impatience. And let us reflect that it
> belongs not to us to cure these evils, that all that remains for us is to implore the help of
> the Lord, in whose hands are the hearts of kings, and inclinations of kingdoms.


----------



## tcalbrecht

littlepeople said:


> I am really a blank slate on this topic. I have picked up that it is pretty hotly contested these days (at least in the blogoshpere) My head keeps swimming reading through all the posts. To quote Painted Jaguar "You are making my spots ache, and besides, I didn't want your advice at all. I only wanted to know which of you is Hedgehog and which is Tortoise." Could someone tell me if the following statement would be R2k, 2k, or something else? It will help me get my bearings. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wherefore, if we are cruelly tormented by a savage, if we are
> rapaciously pillaged by an avaricious or luxurious, if we are neglected by a sluggish, if, in
> short, we are persecuted for righteousness’ sake by an impious and sacrilegious prince,
> let us first call up the remembrance of our faults, which doubtless the Lord is chastising
> by such scourges. In this way humility will curb our impatience. And let us reflect that it
> belongs not to us to cure these evils, that all that remains for us is to implore the help of
> the Lord, in whose hands are the hearts of kings, and inclinations of kingdoms.
Click to expand...

 
If you finish the quote I think you will see it is classic 2K.



> "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods." Before his face shall fall and be crushed all kings and judges of the earth, *who have not kissed his anointed*, who have enacted unjust laws to oppress the poor in judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble, to make widows a prey, and plunder the fatherless.


----------



## littlepeople

Thanks. I'm assuming that the underlined portion is primarily what distinguishes it as classic 2k vs R2k. Is that crushing to occur in this life, or at the last day?

What words could be changed to make it a R2K statement?


----------



## py3ak

littlepeople said:


> I am really a blank slate on this topic. I have picked up that it is pretty hotly contested these days (at least in the blogoshpere) My head keeps swimming reading through all the posts. To quote Painted Jaguar "You are making my spots ache, and besides, I didn't want your advice at all. I only wanted to know which of you is Hedgehog and which is Tortoise." Could someone tell me if the following statement would be R2k, 2k, or something else? It will help me get my bearings. Thanks


 
Armadillo will bend your mind!


----------



## Catechist

Many people on this list have been asking and answering many good specific questions. 

As the 2k doctrine is presented and as more and more people are asking questions about the practical application of it beyond an idealist scope, I have found more good discussion here.

Two Kingdoms Discussion « Green Baggins


----------



## Willem van Oranje

tcalbrecht said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are good points. However, my assessment is just the opposite, in that it is R2k has little plan to deal with the messiness of our pluralistic society, *except to draw an impermeable line between the church and state*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps inconsistently. I'm perplexed by the "Megan's Law" policy adopted by Rev. Riddlebarger's church documented here, and its prima facie inconsistency with R2K.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe it is inconsistent. The state implemented a law governing supervision of individuals with criminal history and this church submitted by implementing the policy. R2k heavily emphasizes our duty to submit to governing authorities.
> 
> The rub comes in if the law required the church to supervise such persons in a way contrary to God's Word. The R2k church could stay consistent with its
> R2kt and stand mute before the magistrate, or abandon its R2k and testify to the magistrate why they will not submit on Biblical grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Inconsistent in that they permitted the state to interfere generally with the internal preaching of the gospel by dictating how they are to treat a certain class of attendees. If the church already had a policy in place that was fully informed by the Word of God prior to the enactment of "Megan's law", that would be a different matter. But to merely react to the state without biblical mandate seems inconsistent.
Click to expand...

 
How does the posting of someone's photo, name and address on an unafiliated website affect the "internal preaching of the gospel" by a church?


----------



## tcalbrecht

Willem van Oranje said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> Inconsistent in that they permitted the state to interfere generally with the internal preaching of the gospel by dictating how they are to treat a certain class of attendees. If the church already had a policy in place that was fully informed by the Word of God prior to the enactment of "Megan's law", that would be a different matter. But to merely react to the state without biblical mandate seems inconsistent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does the posting of someone's photo, name and address on an unafiliated website affect the "internal preaching of the gospel" by a church?
Click to expand...

 
I'm not sure how that question is germaine to the matter at hand. I didn't see anything about pictures or web sites in the policy statement linked here.


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: the two kingdoms are NOT the church and state, but the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the devil. Note also that civil duties are part of the "one City."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a summary of Beza's quotation but the very fact that the two cities are diametrically opposed to each other suffices to show that this quotation is not setting out to teach on the two kingdoms. The two kingdoms are both derived from, and serve for the glory of, God.
Click to expand...

 
Not the "two kingdoms" as defined here, that is. Beza's doctrine is one of one kingdom with various functions. 

Either way you slice it, he's no friend of the concept that church and state are not under one King, Christ Jesus.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

tcalbrecht said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the posting of someone's photo, name and address on an unafiliated website affect the "internal preaching of the gospel" by a church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how that question is germaine to the matter at hand. I didn't see anything about pictures or web sites in the policy statement linked here.
Click to expand...

 
OK, this is the church's policy, but none of it seems to be required by law, unless I am mistaken.


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> Beza's doctrine is one of one kingdom with various functions.


 
It seems to me that this conclusion is based on one quotation which does not really speak to the subject under discussion.


----------



## tcalbrecht

Willem van Oranje said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the posting of someone's photo, name and address on an unafiliated website affect the "internal preaching of the gospel" by a church?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how that question is germaine to the matter at hand. I didn't see anything about pictures or web sites in the policy statement linked here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, this is the church's policy, but none of it seems to be required by law, unless I am mistaken.
Click to expand...

 
To the point, this is clearly a reactive policy based on something that occurred in the civil realm, the so-called Megan's Law. It is not based on sound biblical/theological reasoning about how to interact with those who come into the church with a particular sin background. It seems like a capitulation to civil law, thus it impacts the ability of the local church to preach good news to those in need. And by "preach good news" I do not mean what merely goes on in the pulpit. Anything that impact the local body ultimately impacts the preaching/teaching witness of that body.


----------

