Addressing the confusion of those who think they are addressing the confusion about the two kingdoms doctrine: what about the law?

I stumbled across the blog of a irenic young man who is working on his Ph.D on something related to R2K. On his blog he was, in his most irenic fashion, seeking to help dissipate what he perceived as the confusion of an Elder in his denomination that does not agree with him on R2K. This entry is intended to be my irenic address of the irenic and well intentioned blog post of our earnest Ph.D candidate. We will call him “Irenic” for posting purposes.

Irenic

In this first post I want to take up two of the concerns mentioned by the elder at once. The first is the idea that the Decalogue is not binding in the common realm. The second is the idea that natural law provides the exclusive ethic for the civil kingdom.

Now a basic familiarity with the classic Reformed two kingdoms doctrine as expounded by Calvin, as well as with the writings of a contemporary two kingdoms advocate like David VanDrunen, suggests that there is confusion underlying these concerns, particularly when viewed side by side. Simply put, for Calvin, as well as for VanDrunen, the Decalogue essentially is the natural law. So how could the Decalogue not bind the common realm, while natural law does? The reality is that both bind the common realm fully, even though neither should be fully enforced by the state.

Bret

First, as we want to avoid confusion we should immediately note that the two Kingdom theology of John Calvin is not the two Kingdom theology of David VanDrunen. For example, could VanDrunen’s two kingdom theology agree with Calvin’s two kingdom theology when Calvin says,

“But it is questioned whether the law pertains to the kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual and distinct from all earthly dominion; and there are some men, not otherwise ill-disposed, to whom it appears that our condition under the Gospel is different from that of the ancient people under the law; not only because the Kingdom of Christ is not of this world, but because Christ was unwilling that the beginning of His Kingdom should be aided by the sword. But, when human judges consecrate their work to the promotion of Christ’s Kingdom, I deny that on that account it nature is changed. For, although, it was Christ’s will that His Gospel should be proclaimed by His disciples in opposition to the power of the whole world, and He exposed them armed w/ the Word alone like sheep among wolves, He did not impose on Himself an eternal law that He should never bring Kings under his subjection, nor tame their violence, nor change them from being cruel persecutors into the patrons and guardians of His Church.”

John Calvin
Commentaries on the Last four Books of Moses.

And again,

John Calvin 1509-1564

“But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542

I have many more quotes like this from two kingdom Calvin that radical two kingdom VanDrunen would likely choke upon.

On this score, secondly we would say that obviously Calvin would not agree w/ Mr. Irenic that neither the Decalogue nor Natural Law “should be fully enforced by the state.”

Third, if the Decalogue and the Natural Law both bind the common realm fully why is it that neither should be enforced fully? And, so as to help with our confusion, is it the Natural law or the Decalogue that teaches us that even though they bind the common realm fully they are not to be enforced fully?

Mr. Irenic,

This is a classic example of how misunderstanding among Christians caused by differences in terminology and emphasis can make a minor disagreement seem like a major one. Let me explain.

When two kingdoms advocates (or Reformed people generally) say that the Decalogue is not binding in some sense, they do not mean that the moral will of God (the law of love) as revealed there is not binding. What they mean is that as a covenantal document, as the two tablets of stone representative of the Law (the Sinaitic Covenant, or, as Calvin would have called it, the peculiar ministry of Moses), the Decalogue is no longer binding. Christians are justified by faith alone, and they now fulfill the Law by obeying the law of love.

Here Mr. Irenic seems to assume that the Mosaic covenant was a recapitualtion of the covenant of works. This is something that is not conceded by many Reformed men. So, the differing views of the Mosaic covenant would have to be hashed out (and great would be that work) in order to deliver all of us from all the confusion that currently exists on all sides.

Second, when we talk about God’s law for the common realm we are talking about the civil use or the normative use of the law and not the pedagogical use. It is the pedagogical use of the law that leads us to Christ so that we might be justified by faith alone. All Christians rejoice in God’s justifying of sinners apart from works. However, when we talk about the law as it applies to the common realm or as it is taken up by the Christian Magistrate (something at least some R2K’ers do not believe exists) we are not asking whether or not we can be saved by keeping the law (we can’t) we are asking, “what is the standard for the Christian life as he lives out his life in the common realm” and “what is the standard by which civil magistrates must rule.” The answer to both those questions is God’s Law Word as exhibited in the Decalogue which might also be called, “the law of love.”

And of course the “Law of love,” is exactly synonymous with the Decalogue so that if I want to know what love is I refer to God’s law in order to give love stable definition.

Mr. Irenic continues,

Now when two kingdoms advocates say that the Decalogue is not binding on the state, they might mean several things. They might mean that the state is not obligated to enforce all of the Ten Commandments. The state cannot, for instance, punish people for coveting.

Bret

And of course we remember that nowhere in the Old Testament law (Decalogue or Case law) did God require the Magistrate to handle the sword against thought crimes such as coveting. The OT has a distinction between sin and crime.

Mr. Irenic,

Nor should it punish people for worshiping false gods, let alone for using images in worship. On the other hand, they might simply mean that the ceremonial law as found in the Ten Commandments is not binding (for instance, the commandment not to work on the seventh day Sabbath, which just so happens to be Saturday). Finally, they may mean that citing the Ten Commandments is not a sufficient reason for demonstrating that the state should do something, given all of the above reasons. To prove that the state should do something one would need to show that it is part of God’s timeless moral law (i.e., natural law), and that it is within the state’s realm of responsibility. But I do not know anyone who would say that the moral law as revealed in the Ten Commandments is not binding on all people everywhere. No one says this.

First, let’s remind ourselves that Mr. Two Kingdom John Calvin did believe the State was responsible to punish people for worshiping false gods.

Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.”

Second, note that Mr. Irenic holds a not universally agreed upon view that the 4th commandment is ceremonial and so eclipsed. Mr Irenic suggests that because the 4th commandment of the Decalogue is ceremonial therefore the Magistrate is not obligated to it. Of course those Reformed folks who don’t agree with Mr. Irenic’s view of the fourth word are hardly going to agree with his peaceful reading on this matter.

Third, if the Decalogue and Natural Law are one and the same why would it be necessary to appeal to Natural law to support a Civil Magistrates decision if the Decalogue clearly supports it? If the Decalogue and Natural Law are one in the same then why would an appeal to the Decalogue not be sufficient reason for the State to do something?

Mr. Irenic set out to dispel confusion must I must tell you that my confusion increases with each sentence.

Mr. Irenic,

The key here is to remember that in Reformed theology going back to Calvin, the law of love, the Decalogue (interpreted properly in light of Christ), the principle of equity, and natural law are all the same thing. What this debate is about is not whether or not the civil kingdom is under the law of God. What this debate is about is how we should determine what parts of God’s law the state should enforce by means of the sword, and how we should go about persuading people who are not Christians that the state should enforce something like say, traditional marriage, or the sanctity of life.

Bret,

Ah … has Mr. Irenic slipped us a Mickey? Mr. Irenic talks about, “the Decalogue interpreted properly in the light of Christ.” But wasn’t the Decalogue always supposed to be interpreted properly in the light of Christ even when it was first given? In terms of the civil use of the law and the normative use of the law how does “interpreting in the light of Christ” cause the law to differ from the OT to the NT?

The debate is about whether or not the civil kingdom is under God’s law. If Tommy Two Kingdom comes along and insists that God’s word has nothing to say on Marxist economic policies pursued by the State I am going to see him saying that God’s Law does not condition the civil realm even though he might be insisting that all he is saying is that God’s law does not speak to Marxist economic policies. So, we are left debating what it is we are debating.

Finally, of course we are going to disagree upon how we should go about persuading people who are not Christian that the state should enforce something if we can not agree upon the scope of God’s law.

Mr. Irenic,

In truth, we should be clear to our neighbors about the fact that we keep God’s law because it is revealed in his word. We should not hide the fact that we are Christians, but should always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within us. But we should also clearly and lovingly show our neighbors how the law is written on their hearts and how it is part of the very fabric of creation. By doing this, we can better communicate to our neighbors that God’s law is for their own good, intended for their prosperity, and in so doing, indirectly point unbelievers to the Gospel. In fact, as my recent posts on marriage have sought to demonstrate, Christians would be doing a lot better of a job defending marriage in this country if we approached it in this way, rather than by simply quoting Scripture ad nauseum to those who reject it. The same is true for abortion or for any number of issues. But I am now getting into the subject of my next post, on the concern that two kingdoms proponents claim the Bible is not for the civil realm. I’ll return to that issue in the next post.

Bret,

Here we are back to the first use of the law. If I want to lovingly communicate to my neighbors how the law is written on their hearts then I must also lovingly communicate to them that they are suppressing the truth of that law in unrighteousness. I must also communicate to them that they can not keep God’s law. I must do this to them so that they might despair of their ability to keep God’s law. We must keep in mind that only lovers of God can conclude that “God’s law is for their own good.” And so, while we seek to convince them that God’s law is for their own good, we realize that they will never see that apart from a regenerating work of grace.

I’m not sure I agree with Mr. Irenic that Christians would be doing a lot better of a job defending marriage if they appealed to Natural Law over the Decalogue. People who hate Christ hate God’s law whether you serve it straight up or with a beer chaser.