Clarifying R-2k, 2k, and Spirituality of the Church views

[MW]

Rev. Winzer, please let me know where and when your review will be available. I just purchased VanDrunen's book this weekend (in order better to understand "the other side").

Will do. You will find the book contains interesting comments relative to the RP position.

As one who rejects any and all two kingdom theology, in favor of the Covenanter doctrine of Christ's mediatorial reign over both church and state, I cannot find that "traditional" two kingdom theology can be coerced into the service it is now being pressed. I am quite aware that men like Gillespie and Rutherford specifically rejected the idea of Christ's mediatorial kingship over nations; but anyone who thinks they would advocate the toleration of false churches or religions need only read their own works on "toleration." Brown of Haddington's "Absurdity and Perfidy, etc." is framed within the Seceder's self-conscious rejection of the Covenanter doctrine, and maintains Christ to be king over nations only as He is Creator; but he charges with absurdity and covenant-breaking ("perfidy") those who would relax Britain's laws against Popery.

Good observations. Practically speaking, one can see that an attempt to turn the two kingdom teaching into a reason for toleration would have been met with a response of alarm. I think that is important to note.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Just an FYI that, Lord willing, Matthew Winzer's review of Dr. VanDrunen's book will appear in the forthcoming 2010 issue of The Confessional Presbyterian journal. The editors would like to hit a bit earlier release this year, hopefully this Fall. Also, there is a new special offer to pick up the first 5 issues of the journal (2005-2009) for a low price of $55 postage paid (US; $80 non USA). See details at cpjournal.com.

 

[Kaalvenist]

I should add, I do not adhere to Theonomy, or even Postmillennialism (I'm Amillennial). I just believe that the moral law, as summarized in the Ten Commandments, binds all men in all of their capacities, including as civil magistrates. If they are bound to keep just the first two commandments, this means that they must enforce correct belief (1st command) and correct worship (2d command); which would at least approximate something like the establishment principle.

If men have no more than the light or law of nature, they still ought to know that (1) there is only one God, who alone ought to be worshipped, (2) who alone has the right to determine how he will be worshipped, (3) who ought to be worshipped with all suitable reverence, (4) particularly at times of his own appointment, especially for corporate worship (which itself is mandated by the light and law of nature, as man is a corporate being). General revelation does not reveal as much as special revelation, but it does not reveal anything discordant with or against special revelation. Likewise, the law of nature does not particularly reveal how God is to be worshipped, as far as particular ordinances; what day is to be observed, etc. But neither does it reveal a moral free-for-all, as far as God is concerned.

No man keeps the moral law as he ought; no civil magistrate enforces the moral law as he ought. Why would failure in the second example prove magistrates to be exempt from their duty, if failure in the first example does not prove men in general to be exempt? It is the duty of civil magistrates to legislate on and enforce morality; and the moral law does not merely embrace the second table, but the first as well.