Category: Apologetics

At this link,

Why it’s so important to affirm two kingdoms: Calvin on the Lord’s Prayer

We see the most recent effort of the ever moving target that we have affectionately called “R2K.”

Mr. Tuininga has commented on this subject elsewhere recently,

In my view the two kingdoms doctrine is a doctrine in development, and VanDrunen, like myself, is still working through the best formulations.

It may be just me, but it is amazing to me that we have a whole Seminary (Westminster, Ca.) committed to a Theology that is in flux, not to mention several other Seminary’s that have been significantly influenced by this “theology.” Now, keep in mind, that Two Kingdom theology has been embraced by Reformed Christians since the Reformation, so obviously whatever is in “development” (flux) here is a theology that isn’t standard 2K theology.

The reader can access the Mr. Tuininga’s work at the link. I want to list the problems that remain with his latest greatest version of R2K. I imagine that eventually somebody else will step forward with yet another version of R2K once the problems here are seen as problematic as the problems found in Dr. VanDrunen’s 1.0 version of R2K.

1.) Mr. Tuininga notes at the beginning of his piece that “people think of the two kingdoms doctrine as being about two different airtight realms.” Well, let me testify that the reason people have thought that way is because that is precisely the way that the R2K acolytes have been putting forth the R2K flux theology. It is not as if those who have interacted with them have misunderstood them. Quite to the contrary we have understood them precisely. Hence, the current brouhaha.

2.) Mr. Tuininga notes that people have been focusing on the nitty-gritty questions of application as if by doing so such people have missed the forest that is R2K because of the R2K trees. However, as the saying goes, “the devil is in the details,” and it has been because of the details of application that R2K has been found and still remains wanting.

3.) Mr. Tuininga offers a understanding that the two Kingdoms should be understood as “the age to come,” and this present age,” as opposed to two airtight realms of Nature (common) and Grace (Church). However the problem I see here is that the work of the “age to come,” is to advance and overcome this present wicked age. The age to come is leavening this present age so that as the leavening work continues the kingdoms of this world shall increasingly be, what they already are in principle, and that is the kingdoms of our Lord. Mr. Tuininga is admirably seeking to get the two Kingdoms in contact with one another, which is certainly an advance on the R2K 1.0 version that has the airtight compartments. However, I wonder if behind Mr. Tuininga’s “two kingdoms as the two ages” lies a amillennial eschatology that refuses to allow the current “age to come” now-ness to go from now-ness unto ever increasing now-ness, such as one finds in postmillennial eschatology. I wonder about this because Mr. Tuininga offers a dichotomy between this created (and cursed) world and the kingdom of God, thus suggesting that this created world will not experience incremental reverse of the curse due to the expansion of the present “age to come” kingdom in space and time.

The point here is that Mr. Tuininga’s offerings don’t really significantly advance the discussion because he seems to retain both an amillennial eschatology and a conviction that the kingdom of God is restricted to the Church. These are two doctrines that are central to the controversy and as long as these aren’t addressed it is difficult to see how a resolution can be found.

4.) Note also in the article that Mr. Tuininga is insisting, along with R2K 1.0, that the “age to come” Kingdom of God breaks into this age without immediately (interesting word) destroying or transforming this age. Mr. Tuininga leaves us wondering whether the Kingdom of God, since it does not “immediately transform this age”, if the kingdom of God will ever eventually incrementally transform this present age prior to Christ’s return?

5.) Mr. Tuininga confesses that “there is an eschatological tension that somehow needs to be sorted out.” Yet, this tension has been spoken to before and spoken to my none less then one of the most pre-eminent amillennialists who has ever lived. I am very comfortable with the way this amillennialist worked out the eschatological tension.

“The kingdom means the renewal of the world through the introduction of supernatural forces.” (page 192)

“The thought of the kingdom of God implies the subjection of the entire range of human life in all its forms and spheres to the ends of religion. The kingdom reminds us of the absoluteness, the pervasiveness, the unrestricted dominion, which of right belong to all true religion. It proclaims that religion, and religion alone, can act as the supreme unifying, centralizing factor in the life of man, as that which binds all together and perfects all by leading it to its final goal in the service of God.” (page 194)

Geerhardus Vos
The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church

Dr. Vos obviously believed that the Kingdom of God transforms this present age and I desperately wish we could come to a version of R2K that would take us back to Vos on this matter. Maybe flux R2K 7.0 might finally get us there.

6.) Mr. Tuininga then quotes Calvin.

“We must first attend to the definition of the kingdom of God. He is said to reign among men, when they voluntarily devote and submit themselves to be governed by him, placing their flesh under the yoke, and renouncing their desires. Such is the corruption of the nature, that all our affections are so many soldiers of Satan, who oppose the justice of God, and consequently obstruct or disturb his reign. By this prayer we ask, that he may remove all hindrances, and may bring all men under his dominion, and may lead them to meditate on the heavenly life.

I like quoting Calvin as well,

“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 its 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.

Clearly, Calvin here has no problem with human judges consecrating their work to the promotion of Christ’s kingdom, thus revealing that Calvin did not restrict the Kingdom of God to the Church, nor it would seem that he would allow the notion that the Gospel doesn’t transform this present age. Calvin does seem to be teaching that once Kingdoms are won for Christ to the point that the Magistrate is ruling in such a way to promote Christ’s Kingdom then the redemptive work of the Kingdom can be advanced by those Magistrates who are patrons and guardians of His Church. If you read Mr. Tuininga’s article you will see that is a different thrust then what Mr. Tuininga puts on Calvin. Church and State (this present age and this present age as transformed by the “age to come” so that it partakes in the “age to come,”) co-operate together for the Kingdom of Christ.

7.) Mr. Tuininga then does some good work giving his vision of how God’s providential reign interacts with God’s Redemptive reign, though I would still contend that when God is pleased to give people Godly rulers, who rule by God’s revealed Word, that such ruling, while remaining distinct from God’s Redemptive reign, is far more complimentary to that Redemptive reign, as an expression of His providential reign, then when God’s providential reign is exercised by Christ hating magistrates. I cannot accept that the reign of Godly magistrates, in God’s providence, is as unrelated to Christ’s redemptive reign as Mr. Tuininga teaches when he says, referring to the coercive work of the Magistrate, “It does not build up the kingdom of God. Such a statement is born of the conviction that the Kingdom of God is restricted to the Church. Certainly the coercive work of a Christian Magistrate, ruling in subjection to Christ, is not a Redemptive action properly speaking, though we can say that by restoring and maintaining order, the coercive work of the Magistrate creates space where the Kingdom’s redemptive work can go forward. As such, we may say that, God’s providential reign in this scenario is more visibly furthering His redemptive reign.

8.) Mr. Tuininga tips his eschatological hand when he refers to this age as the “age of suffering service.” This idea is a key component of amillennial R2K thinking and in all this flux theology is consistent with R2K 1.0. It is important to note, because in the amillennial mindset, since this is the age of suffering service, we are not to expect such a transformation power by the “age to come” on this “age of suffering,” that this “age of suffering,” might ever become anything other than “an age of suffering.” Amillennial eschatology is self-fulfilling eschatology. It expects suffering and it will not be satisfied unless it develops a theology that guarantees suffering.

9.) After all that Mr. Tuining writes he finishes by saying (paraphrase) since the two kingdoms are jumbled up we can not expect Christians to agree on exactly how application of Natural law (another point of disagreement) goes forth. So, it seems that this flux theology will, in the end, not get us any closer to agreement on the details of application then we already are.

R2K acolyte writes,

It remains a mystery to me how anyone could have the sort of trouble with VanDrunen that Mark does. My own suspicion after years of reading and engaging 2k interlocutors like Mark is that the push back owes at least in part to a sense that 2k isn’t very useful for the culture wars. In fact, it suggests more caution and the possibility of common ground and life than warriors are comfortable with. In this way, the interesting thing is how the Reformed culturalists seem to parallel the Protestant liberals. The 2k critics will balk at such a comparison, but it remains unclear what keeps anybody from slouching toward some form or another of cultural Christianity without the doctrines of the two kingdoms and the spirituality of the church.

1.) “2k isn’t very useful for the culture wars”

Keep in mind that (R)2K sells itself as Reformed Theology. What the acolyte is telling us is that R2K theology is a theology that is unrelated and unconcerned with matters cultural. There is such a separation between theology and culture that R2K theology can exist without creating culture. This reinforces what I’ve heard from R2K chaps before that Christianity is not a culture creating belief system. This is why R2K chaps insist that there is no such thing as Christian culture. R2K desires to isolate and compartmentalize Christian theology from impacting culture, cultural institutions, and academic disciplines. Because they believe this they hurl epitaphs at those who understand that culture is some theology externalized. For R2K Christian theology is supra, trans or a-cultural. R2K theology is a plant that can be transplanted into any cultural environment and is specifically designed to not have any impact on the culture where it is transplanted and grows. For R2K Christian theology exists for individuals but as those Christian individuals cooperate unto cultural enterprise Christian theology is mute.

2.) The acolyte mentions disdainfully culture warriors and yet seems to miss the irony that he, himself, is a culture warrior against cultural warriors. This gent will go all warrior on anyone who insists that Christianity looks like something particular in the common realm. So the acolyte is not comfortable with Christians who are cultural warriors but he is perfectly fine with the contradiction that finds him being a warrior for culture that is denuded of any explicit manifestation of Biblical Christianity.

3.) The acolyte insists that those who advocate for culture that grows out of Biblical Christianity are parallel with those who advocate for a culture that grows out of Liberal Christianity. One thing that R2K doesn’t seem to realize that Liberal Christianity is not Christianity, not only because it denies certain Biblical-Theological truths but also because in doing so it advances anti-Christ culture. What R2K seems to conclude is that because Biblical Christianity and Liberal Christianity both create their own unique culture, and as such are at cross-purposes, therefore the answer is to insist that Christianity has nothing to do with culture. R2K, by such an approach, believes it clears the ground to advocate a Christianity that is set free from the encumbrance of having to deal with issues cultural. However, R2K Christianity when it takes this tack plants itself squarely in the Liberal Christianity camp as their refusal to resist Liberalism (a resistance that Machen advocated in his book “Christianity and Liberalism”) clears the field for the advance of anti-Christ theology which produces anti-Christ culture.

4.) R2K acolyte believes he has avoided “slouching towards some form or another of cultural Christianity,” but he doesn’t realize that his R2K theology is just another form of the cultural Christianity he despises. Liberal Christianity slouches towards Liberal culture. Biblical Christianity slouches towards Biblical Culture. And, R2K Christianity slouches towards whatever culture happens to be the majority report at the time. R2K slouches there because the refusal to resist is a tacit means of support for whatever theology is in the ascendancy creating the prevailing culture.

2nd R2K acolyte chimes in,

I think a major challenge facing the church today is the need to adjust to a post-Christendom mindset. The task of ethicists such as VanDrunen, myself, and Nelson Kloosterman (who taught ethics at Mid-America) is not to teach us how to conquer culture, but how to witness to Christ in a culture that is often hostile to the Gospel. The primary way in which we do that is by preaching the Gospel clearly, and acting with loving service, not by proclamation of a law or cultural-political conquest.

1.) Here the surrender to pagandom is explicit. Christendom has sashayed off the scene and what R2K is intended to do is to help Christians acquiesce to the reality of social order being organized by a theology other than Biblical Christianity. Some people might call that mindset cowardice.

2.) I’ve never once took any class on “how to conquer culture.” However, I have studied plenty on how to take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ, and I’ve found that as thoughts are made captive to Christ that leads inevitably to be accused by these types as being only concerned with conquering culture.

3.) Notice how “preaching the Gospel clearly” and “acting with loving service,” is set in dichotomous opposition to the ministry of “proclamation of law.” One might ask, “How do we preach the Gospel without setting the table by preaching law?” One might ask, “Isn’t advocating a culture of life (political-cultural conquest) acting with loving service towards those living in cultures of death?”

4.) Notice also how “acting in loving service,” is seemingly cordoned off from God’s law that provides the content for what loving service means. Can a Christian “act in loving service,” towards those outside of Christ without God’s law defining for them just exactly what that loving service might look like? Is there a dichotomy being created here between the “law of love,” and God’s law that defines the content of love?

5.) R2K is forever complaining that Christianity doesn’t conquer in post-Christendom by proclamation of a law. R2K apparently thinks it wrong to have a proclamation of the law for pagans in post-Christendom and yet R2K does have a proclamation of the law for Christians in post-Christendom and that law is, “Thou shalt not appeal to the politicus usus of the law for the public square or in order to reinvigorate Christendom. So, R2K does have a public proclamation of the law but the proclamation is to Christians and that proclamation says, “don’t proclaim law to the pagan.”

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.