# John Calvin On the 2K Debate



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 12, 2011)

From his commentary on John 18:36, _"Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” _

John Calvin  adds a word that should give both sides of the debate pause and cause for reflection. 



> "*My servants would fight.* He proves that he did not aim at an earthly kingdom, because no one moves, no one takes arms in his support; for if a private individual lay claim to royal authority, he must gain power by means of seditious men. Nothing of this kind is seen in Christ; and, therefore, it follows that he is not an earthly king. But here a question arises, Is it not lawful to defend the kingdom of Christ by arms? For when Kings and Princes are commanded to kiss the Son of God, (Psalm 2:10-12) not only are they enjoined to submit to his authority in their private capacity, but also to employ all the power that they possess, in defending the Church and maintaining godliness. I answer, first, they who draw this conclusion, that the doctrine of the Gospel and the pure worship of God ought not to be defended by arms, are unskillful and ignorant reasoners; for Christ argues only from the facts of the case in hand, how frivolous were the calumnies which the Jews had brought against him. Secondly, though godly kings defend the kingdom of Christ by the sword, still it is done in a different manner from that in which worldly kingdoms are wont to be defended; for the kingdom of Christ, being spiritual, must be founded on the doctrine and power of the Spirit. In the same manner, too, its edification is promoted; for neither the laws and edicts of men, nor the punishments inflicted by them, enter into the consciences. Yet this does not hinder princes from accidentally defending the kingdom of Christ; partly, by appointing external discipline, and partly, by lending their protection to the Church against wicked men. It results, however, from the depravity of the world, that the kingdom of Christ is strengthened more by the blood of the martyrs than by the aid of arms."


----------



## Peairtach (May 12, 2011)

The role of the magistrate or Christian magistrate is _circa sacra_ not _in sacra_ as indicated by Calvin.

The question in our more advanced position in history is whether and regarding what a Christian magistrate should enter into the religious matters of those who worship false Gods (e.g. Muslims) and those Christians who engage in false worship (e.g. Roman Catholics).

I believe that Christian magistrates shouldn't engage _directly_ re the first two Commandments because this is a task for the Church in evangelism (i.e. the Israel of God in New Testament Holy War) and for the work of grace. I.e. the Word and Spirit. The Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit by which the Kingdom advances in the territory of God's Kingdom i.e. this Earth. In the Old Testament the sword of iron was the typological equivalent, but much inferior.
Notice in Hebrews 4:11-12 the Sword of the Spirit is mentioned in connection with entering into our Rest.

Threatening people with imprisonment or death or fines if they don't give up Islam or Romanism isn't the function of the civil magistrate as the British or US state isn't in itself the New Covenant Israel of God, and isn't in itself the Kingdom of God. 

It is to rely on carnal weapons to do a spiritual work and is to indeed hinder that work.

There are _indirect_ means by which Christian magistrates can deal with idolaters and false worshippers, as gently as a dove and as wisely as a serpent without driving them further from Christ by simplistic specific reapplications of the Torah.


----------



## discipulo (May 12, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> The role of the magistrate or Christian magistrate is _circa sacra_ not _in sacra_ as indicated by Calvin.
> 
> The question in our more advanced position in history is whether and regarding what a Christian magistrate should enter into the religious matters of those who worship false Gods (e.g. Muslims) and those Christians who engage in false worship (e.g. Roman Catholics).
> 
> ...



I totally agree with you Richard. 

Rev. Glaser, in the times of Calvin due to Rome uniting in itself both Kingdoms, there was still a mixture of spheres, there were religious wars, the Lutheran faith was protected in its territory by Princes and their armies, Zwingli, along with many pastors, died as soldier for Zurich, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 12, 2011)

I am not sure why you would think I was unaware of this?


----------



## mvdm (May 12, 2011)

Benjamin, first, when you say "2k debate", I assume you are talking about the discussion of *permutations* of 2k theology found in Van Drunen, et. al. {now colloquially identified as R2k.} Secondly, I'm really not sure what part of that quote would give pause to those who have raised serious objections to such R2k. Perhaps you could identify the part of the quote you are referring to. Thanks.


----------



## discipulo (May 12, 2011)

mvdm said:


> Benjamin, first, when you say "2k debate", I assume you are talking about the discussion of *permutations* of 2k theology found in Van Drunen, et. al. {now colloquially identified as R2k.} Secondly, I'm really not sure what part of that quote would give pause to those who have raised serious objections to such R2k. Perhaps you could identify the part of the quote you are referring to. Thanks.



And vice-versa, which part of the quote should make those who basically agree with VanDrunen, like myself, to pause and reflect about?

Rev Glaser I was not assuming at all you don't know those things I mentioned. Sorry if that looked like I was patronizing you. I know better than that, I am the lay guy here with no theological education.

I just meant that Calvin had reasons to expect something from the civil authorities that would protect the True Church. But he was also concerned to keep civil authorities from taking hold of the Keys of the Spiritual Kingdom, as they often tried. 

That's why, like I wrote on a recent thread on 2k, Calvin contributes with arguments to both sides of the debate.


----------



## TimV (May 13, 2011)

discipulo said:


> And vice-versa, which part of the quote should make those who basically agree with VanDrunen, like myself, to pause and reflect about?





Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Secondly, though godly kings defend the kingdom of Christ by the sword,



Dude!!!!


----------



## Peairtach (May 13, 2011)

I'm neither Radical Two Kingdoms nor Theonomist. 

An establishment of Christianity in a land should avoid these unbiblical extremes.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 13, 2011)

mvdm said:


> Benjamin, first, when you say "2k debate", I assume you are talking about the discussion of *permutations* of 2k theology found in Van Drunen, et. al. {now colloquially identified as R2k.} Secondly, I'm really not sure what part of that quote would give pause to those who have raised serious objections to such R2k. Perhaps you could identify the part of the quote you are referring to. Thanks.



Yes. I find it curious that the R2K crowd could in any way shape or form try and adopt John Calvin as agreeing with their ideas concerning the Christian's relation to the State. Calvin puts it fairly straightforward on what he thinks of R2K when he says:



> First, they who draw this conclusion, that the doctrine of the Gospel and the pure worship of God ought not to be defended by arms, are unskillful and ignorant reasoners



Secondly, the reason I noted it should give those that agree with Calvin pause is I don't think some of the folks who would ostensibly agree with Calvin here really comprehend the seriousness of the position. In an effort to sound "more Reformed than you" some have taken to spouting Calvin's position here without really taking to heart what exactly Calvin is saying concerning the Magistrate's duty to God.


----------



## cajunhillbilly53 (May 13, 2011)

Sorry when I saw the title of the thread I thought this referred to the Y2K bug and I said to myself, isn't that old news? Then I read the posts and figured out what it was about.


----------



## Peairtach (May 13, 2011)

Of course Calvin was neither a Radical Two Kingdom person nor a Theonomist.


----------



## jwright82 (May 18, 2011)

I think the question is if a predomannetly christian society democraticly voted to enforce the first table of the law, why would this be wrong? This goes back to Calvin and his very pragmatic aproech to enforcing the law as found in his _Istitutes_. There he seems to allow for a society to take up the penal codes of the law or not based on practical neccessity. He also seems to allow for a society to take up harsher penalties than the OT law for the same reason. He also seems to see no moral neccessity to either take up the OT penalties or not. So I think the OP is right at least in saying that Calvin definatly gives us all something to think about. I don't pretend to know everything Calvin said on this subject but I like the way he handled it in his _Institutes_.


----------



## discipulo (May 18, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> > Benjamin, first, when you say "2k debate", I assume you are talking about the discussion of *permutations* of 2k theology found in Van Drunen, et. al. {now colloquially identified as R2k.} Secondly, I'm really not sure what part of that quote would give pause to those who have raised serious objections to such R2k. Perhaps you could identify the part of the quote you are referring to. Thanks.
> ...



It surely must be out of ignorance, not all can have or pretend to have the desired erudition about Calvin.


----------



## mvdm (May 18, 2011)

discipulo said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > mvdm said:
> ...



It is not out of ignorance, Cesar, since the R2k men have read Calvin and cite him repeatedly.


----------



## discipulo (May 18, 2011)

mvdm said:


> discipulo said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...



Mark, I was being sarcastic, such iwas my amazament to read such claims. 

Of course guys like Trueman, Scott Clark or VanDrunen know what they are talking about, some of us may not agree with them, but that doesn't give us the right to patronize them.

I tried to warn that Calvin was a pivotal figure between Romanism and Modernity, as such he is working in a transitional society where the Church used to occupy a great deal of the Civil Sphere of Authority, that was the case in the Middle Age and Genéve was in a ground breaking process out of Rome's "dominion".

To those who have the wishful thinking (not to call it pretension) that the "R2K crowd" don't know Calvin, I suggest the reading of the folllowing article. Link below.

Let's be fair in our critiques gentlemen, we know better, at least we should ! 

The context of natural law: John Calvin's doctrine of the two Kingdoms by David Vandrunen 

The context of natural law: John Calvin's doctrine of the two Kingdoms | Journal of Church and State | Find Articles at BNET


----------



## mvdm (May 18, 2011)

discipulo said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> > discipulo said:
> ...



Cesar, no one claimed the R2k men are ignorant of Calvin. The problem is their embarrassingly selective citation of Calvin to build support for their formulations. It is not patronizing to be amazed by their continued citing of Calvin when it has long been conclusively demonstrated that Calvin's theology does not support key R2k formulations.


----------



## discipulo (May 19, 2011)

discipulo said:


> I just meant that Calvin had reasons to expect something from the civil authorities that would protect the True Church. But he was also concerned to keep civil authorities from taking hold of the Keys of the Spiritual Kingdom, as they often tried.
> 
> *That's why, like I wrote on a recent thread on 2k, Calvin contributes with arguments to both sides of the debate*.



Mark, where was I not clear? 

1st Quote is always selective - follows below a longer quote from Calvin

2nd We need to be honest even more with those with whom we disagree, Mark this kind of claim is in my opinion not fair !

"it has long been conclusively demonstrated that Calvin's theology does not support key R2k formulations"

By whom, how, quotes please!

Jean Calvin, Institutes, 3.19.15

Therefore, lest this prove a stumbling-block to any, let us observe that in man *government is twofold: the one spiritual*, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; *the other civil,* by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bold to performs. To these *two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal **jurisdiction,* intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. *We may call the one the spiritual, the other the civil kingdom.* Now, these two, as we have divided them, *are always to be viewed apart from each other*. When the one is considered, we should call off our minds, and not allow them to think of the other. For there exists in man a kind of two worlds, *over which different kings and different laws can preside. By attending to this distinction, we will not erroneously transfer the doctrine of the gospel concerning spiritual liberty to civil order.*


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 19, 2011)

Those who do not believe R2K have no problem affirming what John Calvin says in 3.19.15.


----------



## mvdm (May 19, 2011)

Benjamin made the point I was going to make. To expand on it, the issue is not the *existence* of the spiritual and temporal realms. Nor is the question whether the church wields the spiritual keys and the magistrate wields the sword. Rather, a major objection is the R2k formulation that the Bible does not provide the moral standards for the "civil kingdom" and that the Bible is for the church only. It is here where the citations to Calvin in alleged support of such formulations is--to put it gently--quite puzzling.

Cesar, you asked for quotes. Instead of innudating this thread, I'd recommend your careful reading of the following articles:

Worldview Resources International

The Sword and the Ploughshare - Old Blog



Two Kingdoms, Ten Commandments, One Objection « Analogical Thoughts


2K or not-2K? « Analogical Thoughts


Spectacles Prescribed: A Review of VanDrunen’s “A Biblical Case for Natural Law” « Contrast

Review of David Van Drunen, A Biblical Case for Natural Law (Grand Rapids: Acton Institute, no date)

http://patrickspensees.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/in-defense-of-moses.pdf


----------



## Peairtach (May 19, 2011)

I think Calvin was wise enough to recognise that neither what is now called theonomy was correct - which is why he was accused of heretical nonsense by Rushdoony - nor what is now called radical two kingdoms was correct, which is why such will be selective in quoting him.

But that general equity, rather than specific reapplication of the Torah, leaves a lot of scope for regenerate and intelligent Reformed thought and debate on the details of civic ethics, and rightly so, since the kingdom of God is a different stages of development in different countries and this should be - and will be - reflected in what is possible. Christanity isn't a top-down totalitarian revolution but a bottom-up regeneration, revival and reformation.

Sometimes Christians are like the Jews based in Babylon or Athens rather than Jerusalem.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 19, 2011)

I'm going to begin this comment with an analogous situation. Most of us identify ourselves as some kind of "Augustinian" Christian. However, on this website you won't find anyone who (openly) promotes Augustin's full-blown ecclesiology. On the other hand, there may be statements within his ecclesiology that we think are accurate and worthy of promoting, while we yet deny its fundamental utility.

It isn't that we aren't being faithful either to Augustin, or his best theology. We entertain the anachronistic hope that (assuming the correctness of our own position) that if he were alive today--a product of our time--he might well be one of us, and stand afar off from Rome. But in his own time, there's no other place for him to be, nor is there conceivably any other world for him. For example, Augustin's extreme responses to the Donatists is, frankly from our standpoint, at odds with the essentials of his faith.
____________

Back to Calvin. In all my reading, I have yet to run across a 2K advocate who claims to be promoting--strictly speaking--Calvin's full doctrine of magistracy. In fact, I have read Scott Clark and Darryl Hart (for two) explicitly repudiating the _theocratic_ assumptions of Calvin's own setting. This is very much akin to repudiating Augustin's ecclesiastical assumptions.

At the same time, it seems clear there are elements of Calvin's thought in the doctrine of magistracy and ancillary doctrines that may legitimately be used _against_ the very assumptions inside of which he operated. If we deny the legitimacy of this move, then we cut the feet out from under our similar appropriation of Augustin, relative to ecclesiology.
_______________

We may not make Augustin over into a Reformation figure, or a modern churchman; both are illegitimate. He was the man of his era, and he promoted _and developed_much vital, evangelical truth in those days--to our lasting benefit. Likewise and moreso, Calvin is an important founder of our theological legacy. We are all recognizably "Calvinist" even more than we are "Augustinian." After all, we could reasonably stand _as Augustinians _with both Lutherans and Jansenists (a stripe of Romanists, best known representative: Blaise Pascal) against all forms of Pelagian and semi-Pelagian dogma. But identify us as Calvinists, and both the Roman and Lutheran associations fall away.

Today, we encounter a dispute (at least three-way) between *establishmentarians* (perhaps the closest to Calvin's views on two-table enforcement of the law), *transformationalists* (neo-Kuyperian), and *dichotomists* (2k, emphasizing the distinctions between Christ's rule). All parties make the claim to be the most faithful to Calvin's legacy.

The establishmentarians have the putative advantage of "pure recapitulation" of the complete Calvin. The disadvantage is that this position tends to conflate new reformation in theology with an historically particular conformation of political society.

The transformationalists have the putative advantage of precedent in the historic Calvinist impact on various societies, professions, trades, arts--in short, culture both general and specific, not necessarily focused on a repristination of Geneva. The disadvantage is that this position has also to deal with the precedent of the co-opting of this impact by a this-worldly emphasis, and the conflation of this salt-and-light impulse with the gospel itself.

The dichotomists have the putative advantage of Calvin's other-worldly perspective, a transcendent vision that may be instantly and thoroughly realized in ANY culture, at ANY time, regardless of the politics or social conventions, and whether they are helpful or harmful to the church. The disadvantage is that it can (or can appear) to neglect the opportunities for benevolent impact in this-worldly terms.

This breakdown is expanded and clarified in: Christ and Culture Roundup - ReformedForum.org. This discussion (lengthy, multi-part; the series *begins* at the bottom of the page, ascending by date) contains a broad overview of _four_ (allowing for yet another mediating position) different perspectives from within the Reformed world. (I say "reformed" with the b . r . o . a . d . e . s . t of inclusivity).

Personally, I find myself most attuned to the dichotomous, 2k stand, while I don't claim it has no faults, limitations, or potential drawbacks. But, I won't be giving up my Calvinist credentials soon, or quoting him favorably when it may help my cause, simply because I'm not a Genevan theocrat.


I hope this analysis is helpful to all the readers.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 19, 2011)

Bruce,

I would also note that sometimes the discussion of these ideas does not take into account whether the Magistrate is Christian or not. There is a _practical_ application of the theology when one is under the rule of differing types of Magistrates. Establishmentarianism is more of an ideal when one is living in a pagan society with a pagan Magistrate. One might argue that it is a Magistrate's responsibility, before God, to serve the living God and defend true religion but one cannot apply a principle in a wooden fashion if the Magistrate is in open rebellion of God. I don't think anyone would ever expect the King of Saudi Arabia to practically live up to the duties that the original WCF prescribes for him.


----------



## MW (May 19, 2011)

First, Van Drunnen fails to recognise the distinction in Calvin between circa sacra and in sacris. Where Calvin says the magistrate has authority concerning sacred things, Van Drunnen understands him as teaching that the magistrate has power in sacred things. At one point Van Drunnen confesses that the "temporal" and "spiritual" distinction of Calvin is problematic. So there are interpretative flaws. Secondly, Van Drunnen calls Calvin inconsistent and consciously distances himself from Calvin's teaching of the magistrate as a keeper of both tables of the law. It is very difficult to regard Van Drunnen as being faithful to Calvin's legacy given these discrepancies.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 26, 2011)

I did not want to start a new thread on this subject so this an addendum on Calvin's thoughts. This comment from Calvin's commentary on Psalm 149 shows Calvin to understand the proper "2 Kingdom" understanding that those of us who are not R2K confess. R2K folks often critique us saying that we conflate the Kingdoms and do not comprehend the division between Church and State. This comment from the "stuck in Christendom" Calvin show that this is not foreign to our position. 



> “Now the doctrine laid down in the passage admits of being rightly applied to our practice, in this way, that what is here said of the two-edged sword, applies more especially to the Jews, and not properly to us, who have not a power of this kind permitted; except, indeed, that rulers and magistrates are vested by God with the sword to punish all manner of violence; but this is something peculiar to their office. As to the Church collective, the sword now put into our hand is of another kind, that of the word and spirit, that we may slay for a sacrifice to God those who formerly were enemies, or again deliver them over to everlasting destruction unless they repent. ”



Commentary on Psalm 149:5-7

To put it simply God has vested both the Church and the State with different offices with the same overseer, the Church to preach God's Gospel, the State to execute God's Justice.


----------



## NB3K (May 26, 2011)

So should we Christians take advantage of the earthly powers, by the force of arms in the middle east as a doorway into the Islamic Countries and if need be plant the seed of faith by our death and by our blood being spiiled by the wicked men, the elect's eyes will be opened and maybe they will see the joy in us in our deaths. That we laid our lives down fore their sake, and by doing so have planted a seed.


----------



## Peairtach (May 26, 2011)

> So should we Christians take advantage of the earthly powers, by the force of arms in the middle east as a doorway into the Islamic Countries and if need be plant the seed of faith by our death and by our blood being spiiled by the wicked men, the elect's eyes will be opened and maybe they will see the joy in us in our deaths. That we laid our lives down fore their sake, and by doing so have planted a seed.



?!


----------



## Fly Caster (May 26, 2011)

NB3K said:


> So should we Christians* take advantage of the earthly powers, by the force of arms *in the middle east as a doorway into the Islamic Countries and if need be plant the seed of faith by our death and by our blood being spiiled by the wicked men, the elect's eyes will be opened and maybe they will see the joy in us in our deaths. That * we laid our lives down fore their sake*, and by doing so have planted a seed.


 
These are not the same.


----------



## NB3K (May 26, 2011)

Who wants to take a trip to Mecca and proclaim the gospel? I bet our gospel would produce more fruit there than here.


----------



## Rufus (May 26, 2011)

NB3K said:


> Who wants to take a trip to Mecca and proclaim the gospel? I bet our gospel would produce more fruit there than here.


 
Somebody has to do it.


----------



## Peairtach (May 26, 2011)

Brothers and sisters converted to Christianity in Muslim lands are already laying down their lives.

Missionaries are working undercover.

Christianity in e.g. Iran is growing.


----------



## ParnellM (Jun 3, 2011)

I agree with Mr. Winzer that we ought not to distance ourselves from Calvin's teaching of the magistrate as a keeper of both tables of the law. And as a corollary to that, I agree with George Gillespie’s treatise “Forbidden Alliances: Concerning Associations and Confederacies with Idolators, Infidels, Heretics, or Any Other Known Enemies of Truth and Godliness”, which can be read online at Forbidden Alliances .

What do others on this Board think about Gillespie's views on political alliances?

Some of us who agree with Calvin and Gillespie are seeking to form a political party based upon these principles, which you can read about at THE PURITANS’ NETWORK . All who agree are invited to join.


----------

