Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.Non-R2k persons go by the name "Reformed".
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?
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.Non-R2k persons go by the name "Reformed".
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?
common grace institution
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.
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).
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".
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.Non-R2k persons go by the name "Reformed".
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?
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.
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?
common grace institution
Can you please define this term?
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 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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
antidisestablismentarianism
antidisestablismentarianism
I think you meant disestablishmentarianism.
I think what we need is a 1.5K view, with nuance.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.