# Two Kingdom view



## JKLeoPCA (Apr 22, 2006)

This was mentioned, it seemed, with some controversy in a resent thread. I thought Maybe it would be good to sort it out. Primarily for my own understanding. 

the way I understand the "two kingdom" view is quite simple, but then maybe too simple.

In the area of works, lets say one donates to establish a hospital. This is a "good" work before men, but not before God. So in the kingdom of men it is civil righteousness, but before God it is no righteousness at all. 



Or am I just way off?


----------



## bigheavyq (Apr 24, 2006)

I think you are way off.

Good works before God centers on the heart and motivation not on where it is done. You could dig ditches for a living and it be counted as a work towards God if your heart is to do everything unto Him. however, one could give loads of money to the church and serve in various capacities and be doing it just for men's favor and not God's. It is a matter of heart and motivation.

I have a real problem with many churches who preach that your ministry and purpose only deal with giftings as they relate only to the church and evangelism (purpose driven life, etc.).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bigheavyq_
> I think you are way off.
> 
> Good works before God centers on the heart and motivation not on where it is done. You could dig ditches for a living and it be counted as a work towards God if your heart is to do everything unto Him. however, one could give loads of money to the church and serve in various capacities and be doing it just for men's favor and not God's. It is a matter of heart and motivation.
> ...


I think you're agreeing violently here.

Regarding "good works", the specific example presented is accurate.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by bigheavyq_
> ...



I too seem to think that your agreeing with the view, and not so opposed as your introductory statement seems to indicate. 

I would add a clarification that with the heart being wicked, in this life the only works seen by God to be righteous, are those done "in Christ." The motivation of the heart does have it's role as indicated by Christ in the Beatitudes, but still nothing righteous comes from deep within. 

Any one action, whether done within the church or in civil affairs, is always done in the presence of men, and in the presence of God. Before men we judge certain works praiseworthy, yet before God all our best is but filthy rags, and after all we have done, we are but unprofitable servants. Yet the Christian has his every attempt at a work praised by the Father, as they are seen to be done, "in Christ." This is the comfort of the Christian that, he is accepted before the Father, and his works are too.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 24, 2006)

WCF 16.1
"*Good works are only such as God hath commanded in His holy Word*, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.

16.2
These good works, *done in obedience to God's commandments*, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto; that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.


----------



## ef (May 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> WCF 16.1
> "*Good works are only such as God hath commanded in His holy Word*, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.
> 
> ...



Wouldn't donating to establish a hospital fall under "love thy neighbor as thyself" and therefore have the Scriptural warrant the Standards call for?


----------



## turmeric (May 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ef_
> Wouldn't donating to establish a hospital fall under "love thy neighbor as thyself" and therefore have the Scriptural warrant the Standards call for?



I don't think we can do *anything* that is meritorious, whatever it may be, even if commanded in the Law; Christ has done it for us. However, we do, as sanctification procedes, more and more works which correspond to the Law, because we are coming to love it and God's ways.


----------



## ef (May 29, 2006)

I don't think we can do *anything* that is meritorious, whatever it may be, even if commanded in the Law; Christ has done it for us. However, we do, as sanctification procedes, more and more works which correspond to the Law, because we are coming to love it and God's ways.  [/quote]

You're absolutely correct, but my understanding of the Standards quoted above is not whether those acts are meritorious or not, but whether they are in fact good works according to a confessional understanding of Scripture.

I think this is a bit of a sideline to what was originally asked re: two kingdom view. My understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, has more to do with the power of the Church to make proclaimations based upon its authority.

A great example of one way this played out in Presbyterian history was in the schism of 1860 when the Southern Presbyterians called the Northern Church on the carpet for overstepping their authority. At that GA a statement was produced calling upon the Presbyterian Church to pledge its alliegance to the Union, and against slavery. The Southerners said that it had no authority to do so, that both points went beyond Scripture, binding consciences on issues not specifically taught in Scripture.

Thornwell, and Dabney, (among many others) recognized that Christ's power was meant to be applied through the Gospel in the form of faithful proclaimation of the message of Law and Gospel from the pulpit on the Lord's Day. To abuse the keys of the Kingdom, forcing members to submit to statements like the one briefly described above, was seen as a heinous misundstanding of the power of the Church. Not only this, but it severed unity by taking peripheral issues that had more to do with economics, provincial power, and egalitarianism than with the theology central to membership in the Church.

According to this scenerio, the principle of two kingdoms would have allowed brothers and sisters in each section of the Presbyterian Church at that time to disagree on issues of politics and national alliegance while agreeing in the central issues of theology and ecclesiology. It would seem to me that Christ's prayer that we would be as one is more perpetuated by a healthy understanding of this principle than by the hyper-Kuyperian "redeem culture" ideas propounded in many circles today. 

I see no reason why I, an old school limited gov't conservative/libertarian can't sit beside a lover of Pres. Bush or a hard-core liberal Democrat and worship the same God, recognizing our primary identity is as those washed in the blood of Christ, members of that Holy Nation that Christ gave Himself to save. By confusing our political works with that of the preaching of the gospel we run the risk of falling for the essence of the last century's liberalism.

Obviously these words are not meant to suggest that anyone here propounds the extremes addressed above. I recognize that it is unlikely that CRC people are going to view this board, but I do believe that there is a "slippery slope" argument that has merit in this discussion.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 29, 2006)

Dear Paul,

The theory and theology of the two kingdoms is pretty simple:

The sovereign God has established two kingdoms, civil and ecclesiastical, that he adminsters differently. 

It has nothing to do with merit/works before God which is a matter of soteriology.

It's not helpful to connect it to the controversial Irons case. 

David Van Drunen and Darryl Hart who are well-known advocates of the two-kingdoms view (which has roots in Calvin's Institutes, 4.20). David has accounted for the two-kingdoms in a number of journal articles. You'll have to go to a real (as opposed to virtual) library to get them, but any reference librarian can help you. Paul can just come across town!

rsc



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ef is correct in his description of the two kingdom vew taught at, say, WSC.
> 
> 
> ...



[Edited on 5-30-2006 by R. Scott Clark]


----------



## Kaalvenist (May 31, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> Dear Paul,
> 
> The theory and theology of the two kingdoms is pretty simple:
> ...


Dr. Clark,

Are there any Internet resources that you would recommend for understanding the Two-Kingdom View? especially as contrasted with a Covenanter understanding of Christ's mediatorial kingship?

BTW, I'm a member of David Reese's congregation in Colorado Springs.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 31, 2006)

> Dr. Clark,
> 
> Are there any Internet resources that you would recommend for understanding the Two-Kingdom View? especially as contrasted with a Covenanter understanding of Christ's mediatorial kingship?
> 
> BTW, I'm a member of David Reese's congregation in Colorado Springs.



There's one online essay here. If might be well to contact the Mod Ref folks to get that back issue. 

There is a blog here

I suppose that the more serious literature is not online. Any public library can order what you need via inter-library loan. They can usually do it for free (--it tax-payer subsidized).

Please greet David for me. He is a great friend and a great friend of the gospel.

rsc


----------

