1.5 Kingdom View?

[ChariotsofFire]

One question I've been considering lately is "Do I fall into the One Kingdom View or the Two Kingdom View?" I became interested in the subject because of the recent Westminster Seminary California Evangelium and the discussion in the Christian Renewal. This topic seems very complicated to me as there are positives and negatives I see to both sides.

The two kingdom view seems strong to me because it distinguishes between this life and the life to come. I also see the value of the one kingdom view as all of creation is under God's rule and the fact that now does count for eternity. I'm starting to think I have a 1.5 kingdom view. I have 2k in me because I believe we need to focus on eternity and the things of God, and I believe that the salvation of souls is more important then anything else in life. Then there's the 1k side of me, where I see the importance of work and using the creation around us wisely. I also think we need to work at transforming the culture and fight against things like abortion and gay marriage.

Anyone else on the fence on this issue? I am curious to see other people's opinions on the matter. Also, here is an blog post that I thought was helpful in clarifying some of the strengths and weaknesses of both.

Two Kingdom Theology and Neo-Kuyperians – Kevin DeYoung

 

[lynnie]

Nice post.

I am currently reading Marsden's Reforming Fundamentalism ( about Fuller) and just read the part about the huge theological divide here; the "come out ism" versus the "impact the culture" view. ( you might like this book). Church and Christianity being about saving souls and living a holy life, vs the historical understanding Christians had about transforming society. Both sides have very good points, very good theologians, and good historical precedents.

I don't know what to think at this point. 1.5 sounds good to me. Contrary to what you see in some reformed circles, I think it is find to not have your doctrine all figured out yet

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Here are some resources on this question:

Once More: Resources on the Two Kingdoms Heidelblog

"Two kingdoms" is just one way of putting it. It was Calvin's way of putting it in Institutes 3.19.15:

Therefore, in order that none of us may stumble on that stone, let us first consider that there is a twofold government in man (duplex esse in homine regimen): one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men. These are usually called the “spiritual” and the “temporal” jurisdiction (not improper terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life—not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately. For the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter regulates only outward behavior. The one we may call the spiritual kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority.

I'm perfectly happy, however, to say "One Kingdom, two spheres." The essential distinction is between the sacred/ecclesiastical/spiritual and the common/creational/civil realms.

As I understand it, both are governed by divine sovereignty and by divine revelation but in distinct ways.

 

[Christusregnat]

One question I've been considering lately is "Do I fall into the One Kingdom View or the Two Kingdom View?" I became interested in the subject because of the recent Westminster Seminary California Evangelium and the discussion in the Christian Renewal. This topic seems very complicated to me as there are positives and negatives I see to both sides.

It is critical that we distinguish the functions of the different spheres of government, and their relationship to revealed religion. There are not merely two spheres of government, there are more like four or five: self-government, family government, church-government and civil government. Each of these is given different roles and reponsibilities, and their role is limited and commissioned by God, the Creator of each sphere. For example, the function of procreation is not given to the church of the civil govt, or even to the individual, but is only a function of family government. The civil government has the power of the sword to execute God's wrath against evil workers. The church has the keys of the kingdom to receive or exclude from the heavenly kingdom.

Generally, discussion revolves around the civil and ecclesiastical spheres. Our Confession states as follows:

Chapter 23: III. Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordainances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he has power to call synods, to be present at them and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.

This is pretty standard Reformed theology, and was the position of Calvin, Bullinger, Beza, Bucer, Junius, Piscator, Knox, and a host of other Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters.

The key: the jurisdictions are separate, but they cooperate to glorify the one King who reigns over the separate spheres by His Word.

Cheers,