Clarifying the relation of the two kingdoms doctrine to neo-Calvinism
A person who recently listened to my lecture on the two kingdoms doctrine communicated the concern to me that in the question and answer session I was insufficiently clear that not all neo-Calvinists find the two kingdoms doctrine problematic. If you have listened to the lecture, a member of the audience asked me why some people find the two kingdoms doctrine so worrisome. I responded (in part) by suggesting that some neo-Calvinists, particularly the more radical types, are influenced by liberal Protestant and even Hegelian notions of the way in which all of life is transformed into the kingdom of God, to the point that they abandon the Christian notion of secularity, or of the distinction between the present age and the age to come.
To be sure, I should have been more clear. There are many people who consider themselves neo-Calvinists who do not share the radical critique of the two kingdoms doctrine, and who themselves are committed to it in its basic points. In fact, depending on how you define the term, many two kingdoms advocates are themselves neo-Calvinists, in the sense that they share Abraham Kuyper’s emphasis on Christ’s lordship over all of life, they embrace his understanding of common grace, and they wholeheartedly appreciate his understanding of sphere sovereignty. I would include myself in this group.
From my perspective the two kingdoms doctrine offers a clarification to the best of neo-Calvinism (or of Kuyper) rather than a rejection. This clarification is necessary precisely to avoid some of the missteps made by various neo-Calvinists over the years, particularly those I referred to in my lecture as the more radical types. It helps to remind people that although Christians are to serve Christ as their king in every area of life, that does not make every area of that life “kingdom activity,” nor does it make every area of life equally eternal. There are some things that do pass away (Luke 20; 1 Corinthians 7) even though Christians are to do everything that they do as unto the Lord (Ephesians 5-6) because all things exist and are reconciled in Christ (Colossians 1). Many neo-Calvinists get this, and in that sense they themselves hold to the basic two kingdoms doctrine.
Unfortunately, however, much of this debate is really a matter of arguing over application of shared doctrine at best (a form of argument that is necessary but that often obscures a more basic unity regarding foundational issues among the disputants), and posturing at worst. But it is important to be clear. And so for my part I want to clarify that the two kingdoms doctrine is not at odds with the best versions of neo-Calvinism; indeed, as David VanDrunen demonstrated in his Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, in fundamental respects Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck themselves endorsed the essential features of the doctrine.
Hopefully clarity on this question will help many people to get past their fears of the two kingdoms doctrine as something radically new and innovative, while helping them to see at the same time that the neo-Calvinist legacy has not been unmitigated good. We must testify to the lordship of Christ over all of life while at the same time distinguishing between the secular affairs of this age and the kingdom of God itself. Surely we can all agree on that, right?
Posted on July 24, 2012, in Neo-Calvinism, Two Kingdoms and tagged Abraham Kuyper, David VanDrunen, Herman Bavinck. Bookmark the permalink. 32 Comments.
My listening was live, of course, and may be sketchy. But at one point you did remark that one of the reasons self-professing neo-Calvinists demonstrate worry over 2k is that they’ve come up believing that cultural transformation is just a given feature of Calvinist orthodoxy. That resonated with my own experience in SW Michigan. Some aren’t even familiar with the term “transformationism” because to speak about it as a distinct doctrine seems odd to ears that assume its basic orthodoxy. So pushback on it to a (culturalist) neo-Calvinist feels like pushback on predestination to a (doctrinalist) 2ker. In that sense, I get the worry. At the same time, I wonder if they understand the worry that culturalism is what largely animated Protestant Liberalism and fuels the Religious Right.
Matt,
This clarification regarding representative neo-Calvinism is perhaps one of the most helpful things that has been written in the recent past, in terms of the ongoing discussion. Thank you very much. You helpfully identify the similarity, in terms of cultural Christianity, between Protestant liberalism and some forms of evangelicalism. Thank you for this post, because it enables us to move on to discuss important biblical-theological considerations now.
Nelson D. Kloosterman
Zrim, I think your point is insightful. It does help to recognize that within neo-Calvinism itself there is a broad spectrum, and that not all neo-Calvinists endorse the sort of transformationalism that is problematic from a two kingdoms perspective. Nelson, thanks for your gracious and constructive comment, as well as for your blog post on this. I think it definitely helps move the discussion forward.
In my estimation you seem to broadbrush things that are not true. I am in no way a liberal. I hold to the Presbyterian Standards. I am not so sure you guys understand the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ as well as you think you do. Even if you don’t hold to it you still would probably find yourself at odds with Gillespie even. I am not mad or upset with you guys. I just don’t think you have understood our position as well. I heartily recommend to You Messiah the Prince by Symington and maybe discussing this with some Professors such as Dr. Richard Gamble of Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary. There is a whole host of us who do not agree with your view of Two kingdom Natural Law and we are not liberals. We understand the world is the World. Secular. It is sinful. The Law does restrain and God is Lord over all creation.
I do believe there is room for understanding each other. I am not sure you have done your job in trying to fully understand the Reformed Presbyterians or those who believe that There is one Kingdom with different realms. Yes, you might say semantics but it really is a bit more than that when things are dichotomized and cut off as far as they are. As you might believe their is danger in the One Kingdom view their is also danger in divorcing man from that reign.
I do believe we need to remember WCF 16 Section VII.–Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use both in themselves and others; yet, because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God; they are therefore sinful and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God. And yet their neglect of them is more sinful, and displeasing unto God.
This is the Confession….
Section I.–God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him over the people, for his own glory and the public good; and to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers.
Section II.–It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate when called thereunto; in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth, so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions.
Kind regards and encouragement to you,
Randy Martin Snyder
Puritanboard.com
I should really proof text. Their for There and such? Wow, I am a terrible writer. Sorry.
Mr. Snyder,
Thank you for your kind and irenic comment. It is true that I have not engaged Covenanter thought at a deep level. But I might be a little unclear on where you are coming from.
In my experience the RP folks that I have met were strong advocates of the two kingdoms doctrine, though they emphasized (rightly, I believe) that Christ is king over both kingdoms. At the same time, they were absolutely not theonomists. I have never viewed these brothers and sisters as liberals (not sure where you got that from); my own wife spent some of her most formative years in the RP church.
Do you think you could clarify where you are coming from a bit here?
Yes, I can Matt. It isn’t defined as Two Kingdoms by us. Dr. Gamble recently did a Session at the international conference on this topic. He did a superb job. And he made the distinctions I will make as One Kingdom with two spheres. It is defined by us as One Kingdom as the Confession states in Chapter 23 and that the Civil and Church have two different jobs under His Kingship. I prefer to use the term spheres under the King. They are not two Kingdom’s because they should be defined more as offices or responsibilities under the King. Yes, I do understand that in an Establishmentarian way that a King is an under King as a Pastor is an Undershepherd in the Church.
Matt, I was told to follow your blog and thought by Mark Van Der Molen. You do need to grow in your understanding. We all do. I have been growing for over 30 years. I discuss many issues and theological ramifications with some of the best theologians in the world. I am not bragging. I just fell into it. It isn’t anything that I have done or earned. I would like to encourage you to learn more about the old positions a bit more. I understand you have studied a lot and been groomed by some of the best. Even your Dad. At the same time I think you have been jaundiced. I do not mean that in an ungracious way. I have found myself jaundiced in my theology and historical understanding before also. Life is growing up and growing in understanding. We are constantly trying to become more orthodox so that we will practice correctly. I am still maturing after 31 years. And I wasn’t an arminian who became a Calvinist. I started off a Calvinist.
No, I am not a theonomist. I am Theocratic believing Christ is a mediatorial King. I have also read Gillespie and find him wanting a bit. If you want to carry this on a bit I am more than willing. I have some good resources for you. We can do it by phone or email even if you want.
I also moderate the Puritanboard.com. I aint perfect at it nor do I always get it correct but I try. LOL.
my email is puritancovenanter at gmail dot com. I will give you my primary one if you get in contact with me.
Be Encouraged,
Randy
Randy,
Thanks for your follow up. I’ll shoot you an email. Just curious, though, what do you do with the old Scots theologians like Samuel Rutherford et al who explicitly affirm a version of the two kingdoms doctrine. Are you saying these men are not representative of the covenanter tradition?
I would have to see the references Matt. Context and language are complicated. Let me just put it another way for you.
There are many Kingdoms in the World. (Nations) Within those nations there might be under nations as our States. But in everyone of those they all have the two spheres that should operate side by side officially. A Kingdom should have the Church and Government operating side by side in their distinct capacity as God defines them and their obligations under His authority and Kingship. So in all reality even in separate Kingdoms there is only one King and two offices under that King. I hope I am being clearer than mud. LOL.
Look forward to conversing with you brother.
I think I understand your position here. But I do not think Scripture teaches that the civil magistrate represents Christ’s messianic kingship. David and the kings of Israel did, to be sure, but the princes of this age are inherently secular, not eternal. As a result, I think that Christ’s messianic kingship is communicated only through the offices of the church. Civil magistrates have a secular task that is subservient to that messianic kingship, but they do not express it. Jesus is declared the head of all authority and power both in this age (secular) and in the age to come (eternal), but that does not mean the authorities of this age communicate the authority of the age to come. Magistrates, fathers, masters, are under Christ’s authority but they remain secular, not eternal. The language of one kingdom with multiple spheres is insufficient because spheres do not communicate the Scriptural concept of overlapping ages; they merely divide life up into realms. The language of two overlapping kingdoms, on the other hand, captures the Scriptural eschatology of two ages. That, in a nutshell, is why I think it is so important.
Matt states,
“but the princes of this age are inherently secular.”
Me
I disagree with this in light of Psalm 2 and a few other Psalms like 48.
Matt states,
“Jesus is declared the head of all authority and power both in this age (secular) and in the age to come (eternal), but that does not mean the authorities of this age communicate the authority of the age to come.”
Me
I find your definition of age and age to come to be deficient here. One being secular and one being eternal is a stretch and poorly defined as I know them. But I will listen.
Your defining of things secular does not mean they are not spiritual and eternal. A man who has Union with Christ is still the same man and will be transformed even though he is still a man on this side and very physical. Yet he is still very spiritual. His change did not take him out of the World and he is still very eternal and under the mediatorial Kingship of Christ. Worldly things can be used for eternal purposes. A glass of Water can be a single coin. They might not change in physical appearance but they do change from vanity to eternal in purpose under the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ. He makes them eternal things by His mediatorial office. Where your treasure is there will your heart be also.
May Christ open our eyes. I did send you an email.
As the WCF states in 23.1, “God, the Supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under him over the people, for his own glory and the public good;” This has eternity written all over it in the fact that it is for His own glory and the public good.
WCF 23 has eternal perspective and spiritual edification written all over it as do the scriptures. To divide the secular away from the eternal is a mistake in my estimation and has ramifications that will harm spiritually and physically. And it all has to come under the Mediation of Christ or there is no hope for anyone. Especially since God places everyone under this sphere and organism of His Kingdom.
As it says, God commands everyone everywhere to repent. That is all. And Christ was given a name that everyone should bow and will bow based upon His person and work. Not that he wasn’t already Sovereign but also because God gave him this Authority to Mediate over all things for the Church.
Dichotomizing things to far apart has terrible ramifications in my estimation. It isn’t serious error to understand the distinctions but refuse to dichotomize things as far apart as some are doing.
I truly believe a lot of this problem starts with the Mosaic and dispensationalizing it. It leads to a dichotomization that is taking us away from where we should be as a Church and Society.
I posted on the Mosaic here but I do not focus on the ramifications leading us into the problems I think it is.
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/mosaic-covenant-same-substance-new-724/
Anyways, there are a lot of things tied together in this discussion that I believe have to be dealt with. Better men than myself have struggled with these issues. And for that I am grateful because I am living off of their fruit.
I think it will help here if we define our terms carefully. In classic Christian terminology the term secular (derived from the Latin word saeculum, which is a translation of the Greek word aeon) refers to what is of the present age but will not endure into the age to come. Given that definition of the word (as I try to use it consistently on this blog) the secular cannot be eternal. The things of this age will be consumed with fire, and the creation will be transformed. Those things that do not survive beyond this are secular. So for instance, the kingdom of Christ is eternal, our bodies are eternal by virtue of the resurrection from the dead, etc. But something like marriage is secular because it passes away (Luke 20; 1 Cor 7). Likewise, coercive government is secular because it too passes away, and its power does not extend to the things of the age to come (i.e., it cannot open and close the kingdom of heaven).
It is possible for an institution to be secular and still to serve or kiss the Son. And I absolutely disagree that just because something is for God’s glory and for the public good it is therefore eternal. I can use my laptop for God’s glory and the public good but it is not eternal. And no matter how obedient the United States is to God, that does not make the United States eternal. I hope that helps. Not sure how this squares with covenanter theology but I know it is very expressive of classic Christian theology and of the language and thought of Calvin.
Ummmm. Bringing our terminology together will help Matt.
I do know what you are saying and where you are coming from. Yes, things to cease to exist in form maybe. But the things they are used for can be a part of the mediation of Christ and have eternal fruition which makes their purpose (secular or not) eternal.
I have always understood secular in these terms that R. C. Sproul expresses here.
http://www.ligonier.org/blog/secularism-ignoring-the-eternal-pt-2/
QUOTE
A Secular Priesthood
Historically, the word secular is a positive word in the Christian’s vocabulary. The church has always had a good view of that which was regarded as secular. In the Middle Ages, for example, men were ordained to a specific role in the priesthood that was called the “secular priesthood.” These were men who had responsibilities which took them out of the institution of the church to minister in the world where there were specific needs requiring the healing touch or the priestly mission of the church.
There is a sense of which I was ordained as a secular clergyman because I was ordained to the teaching ministry, not to an ecclesiastical office within a local congregation. I was commissioned to go to the university and become a teacher in the secular world. It is this secular world that can be distinguished, to some degree, from that sphere we have set apart and called the church, or the sacred realm. Often, in the minds of many Christians, the distinction between sacred and secular is the distinction between the good and the bad, but that is not the way it has been used in church history. Secular was simply a different sphere of operation.
The word secular has its origins and its roots in the Latin language and comes from the word saeculum which means “world.” The secular priest is one who ministers in the world.”
…
END QUOTE
Anyways, look at the stuff I sent you and pick up a copy of Symington. Also read RPCNA Pastor Philip Pockras short on this topic that I sent you. http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/christ-king-all-716/
Get a hold of Dr. Gamble. And email me. May we edify each other and build each other up in the calling we are both called to.
I agree that secular things or institutions can do things that are eternal in purpose. But could you explain what you mean when you say they can be “a part of the mediation of Christ”?
I think Sproul’s definition is headed in the right direction, but only if we understand the word “world” in an eschatological sense, i.e., in the sense of the word age. Otherwise we veer too close to a Greek neo-Platonist type view I think.
BTW, have you taken the time to read Dr. Kloosterman’s review of VanDrunnen’s work?
http://worldviewresourcesinternational.com/kloosterman/DVDreviewNL2K.pdf
He does invite others to reasonably discuss it.
http://cosmiceye.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/an-invitation-to-reasoned-and-responsible-discourse/
Let me put mediation in an example. Christ goes between God and Man using means based upon HIs person and work to the Glory of God the Father. A means can have eternal fruition thus making it’s purpose spiritual. Christ does this based upon the fact that all authority is given to him based upon His person and work per Philippians 2.
I may be mistaken here but it seems that all of creation is attached to mercy and common grace due to the fact that we still exist. Adam should have died. And that grace and mercy is based upon Messiah the Prince. God clothed Adam and Eve right away and pronounced the work of Messiah the Prince to Lucifer right away. All of Creation exists because of Messiah the Prince as Mediator. Had God’s sovereignty of rule just been based upon the Holiness of God mankind would not have existed the minute after Adam partook of the fruit of the tree. Thus all of creation still exists based upon the mediator Messiah the Prince.
OK, I admit it, I am a bit at a loss. You sent me a link to an article on Christ’s kingship showing the RP/covenanter position to not be a two kingdom position, and yet I see him articulating the two kingdoms doctrine (http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/christ-king-all-716/) To quote him,
“As noted above, there is a general concensus among Reformed churches that Christ is Mediatorial King of Saints. The Church is His Kingdom of Grace, His ‘special Kingdom’. As we look at this particular aspect of Christ’s Mediatorial Kingship, we should assume that there would be implications for doctrine, discipline, government, and worship. In these four areas, it must be asserted that the Word of Christ alone determines matters …”
Christ is King of nations as well as saints. Nations are distinctly part of His universal Mediatorial Dominion. They are part of His Kingdom of Power, His ‘subordinate Kingdom’” …
This is more like what I thought RP people believed, but what you say in the comments above is quite different from this. Perhaps we can clear this up in our email conversation.
Regards,
Matt
OK, but I thought the mediatoral kingship of Christ was more about Colossians 1:17-20, the idea that all things are reconciled in Christ, such that he has been raised above all authority and power in both this age and the age to come (Eph 1). Thus there is nothing that Jesus has not won by his death and resurrection, and so all things are part of his mediatoral kingship, but given the gap between the already and the not yet (this age and the age to come) we still distinguish between the way in which he rules through his two kingdoms. Is this not what RP folks believe? This is certainly what I hold.
One more quick question. By which title is Jesus said to be head over all Principality and power? Is it not Christ?
We are posting past each other brother.
I tried to make this point earlier. They can’t be two Kingdoms because they are two different functioning things that go hand in hand under a King. They are distinct offices or spheres. You should not have one without the other. They are not stand alone units. A kingdom is a whole with a King and offices under Him as He defines their purposes and functions within His realm or Kingdom. We in America have a problem understanding this doctrine because we have a representative Government and not a Monarchy. Messiah is a Monarch. When that understanding is lost we loose the ability to comprehend what is being said. It gets back to understanding each others terminology. It gets back to understanding how God defines His World and Kingdom.
Am I still clear as mud? LOL
BTW, I am not going to post the links to the videos or a lot of stuff because this is your blog and you should probably view them first. I want to be courteous. And you might not approve of what I post.
I understand your point about the one kingdom with two spheres, but it does not seem to me that your point is compatible with the Pockras piece to which you referenced me as representative of the RP position, which clearly speaks in terms of two kingdoms, following Calvin. I quoted him so that you would see that his language is the same as my language; it is not the language you are using.
And I understand. Sometimes we use terminology but mean different things. This is a very important point. We have to understand how terminology is being used. This is also a problem when we read the Divines. Even in the Republication of the Covenant of Works teaching one must understand what is meant by Republication. At this juncture I believe that language needs to be tightened up and that we need to try to understand what is being meant by kingdom.
I quit using the terminology of Republication because I was being misunderstood by today’s people.
Matt said,
“I think I understand your position here. But I do not think Scripture teaches that the civil magistrate represents Christ’s messianic kingship.”
To back up a bit… Does this mean that the Civil sphere shouldn’t and isn’t under His Mediatorial Dominion? After all, It is said that Messiah has been given all authority and that He is head over all principality and power. Just because a Church or individual will not represent Christ does not take them out from under his Mediatorial Kingship does it? It doesn’t remove the office of Mediator over them for all things concerning His Church does it? This Kingdom was given to Him by God the Father. Everyone is responsible to Him as Mediator and King. He was given a name by God the Father that is above every name because of His person and Work according to Philippians 2. Yes, there is a now and not yet that can be emphasized. But it doesn’t take away from the total fact. I am in Union with Him but I have a now and not yet aspect to consider also.
Right, I would agree that the civil realm is under his mediatoral kingship as I defined in my last comment, but that it is nevertheless not an expression of the eternal kingdom, but of the secular (i.e., temporal) kingdom.
Let me provide an analogy. An emperor invades and conquers a country. That country is now part of his empire, definitively. But he has not yet transformed it or turned it into the perfect expression of his rule. In the meantime, he leaves certain power structures in place, say governors that will rule over that country for only a short time. These governors are under his imperial rule, but they cannot be identified with the perfect expression of his rule, because they still govern in the old ways. When the time is appropriate (i.e., his own ministers work out his own perfect rule) he will abolish the governors, and rule for his empire perfectly.
To explain the parable
, the governors are civil magistrates, the ministers are the ministers of the church, and the emperor is Christ. He is the supreme lord of lords by virtue of his resurrection and ascension, but he nevertheless rules through two overlapping kingdoms for the short term.
My question now would be…. Should this extended kingdom you are describing in your parable be representative of the Emperor to whom it belongs? Should it represent the Laws of this King if He says it should. Can it divorce itself from this Emperor without harming itself? Does not this Kingdom get consummated into something someday?
Yes, I understand how you are using the term Kingdom. I truly have no problem with it when it is referring to something that Governs or administers. There is the understanding that a Kingdom has many offices that can administer and Govern under the authority of a Single reign. But Kingdom means a Sovereign with a Domain. As men of this world some of us even refer to our households as our kingdoms. We govern them as heads and authorities of our families. It matters how we are using the terminology.
Matthew, I listened to your lecture and I think you are equating some things that are not so and then not doing it when you should maybe. Even in your concept of secular (meaning age only) the yet and not concept is inconsistent in some of your applications. You apply it is some places and don’t in others. I understand it is based upon your hermeneutic and I believe you are inconsistent sometimes during your discussion.
For instance, Just because Caesar doesn’t submit to Christ as King doesn’t take him out from under the authority of Christ’s Mediatorial Kingship. You used this as an example of proving that Christ held to a two Kingdom view.
Some of this has to do with abrogation and administration. It isn’t necessarily two Kingdom’s. It has to do with. It is the yet and not yet in my estimation. It has to do with the the Consummation and prior to it. We see this in the Mosaic Covenant. The types and the anti-type.
Anyways, here is a passage that I think is possibly relevant here also.
(Mat 13:24) Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
(Mat 13:25) But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
(Mat 13:26) But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
(Mat 13:27) So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
(Mat 13:28) He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
(Mat 13:29) But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
(Mat 13:30) Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Just because someone isn’t submissive to Christ doesn’t mean that Christ isn’t Messiah the Prince and Mediatorial King over them.
Be Encouraged Matthew
Randy,
Thanks for listening to my lecture, and for your feedback. It’s hard to know what you are concerned about with most of your comment because it is quite general, but I will respond to your one particular point.
You write,
“Just because Caesar doesn’t submit to Christ as King doesn’t take him out from under the authority of Christ’s Mediatorial Kingship. You used this as an example of proving that Christ held to a two Kingdom view.”
I agree wholeheartedly, that caesar is under the mediatorial kingship of Christ as classically defined. However, I believe the mediatorial kingship of Christ has classically been explained in terms of the two kingdoms doctrine, and the RP paper to which you directed me confirmed that view, as have conversations with two highly educated RP ministers over the past couple days. It seems to me that there is a revisionist movement going on in RP circles, perhaps as an effort to distance the denomination from certain versions of the two kingdoms doctrine (say that associated with Darryl Hart?), that wants to abandon the rich two kingdoms language that has always been in the tradition. Let me just say that given the serious role the two kingdoms doctrine plays in helping us to avoid the errors of conflating the kingdom of Christ with the institutions of this world (i.e., the social gospel, liberation theology, etc.), I think a move away from doctrinal clarity in this respect is terribly misguided. Overreaction to error is always a danger, and I fear that is what is going on here.
But my deepest concern is not about the RP tradition. It is about allowing Scripture to norm the way in which we use the language of the kingdom. Yes Scripture teaches that Christ rules over all, but it also uses the word kingdom in a more precise, redemptive sense, that does not encompass all things, and that denotes the state of affairs promised to us in the age to come, that is only breaking into the present, in a limited sense. That’s why Paul can make a statement like, “for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom 14:17). That’s why he can teach that Christians are transferred into the kingdom of Christ, while pagans are not (Col 1:13-14). If you jettison two kingdoms language and insist that everything is part of one kingdom, you can’t talk about the kingdom in the way Scripture does anymore. And that’s what matters most.
Classic RP language handles this perfectly, by distinguishing between Christ’s mediatorial kingship over all things, and the distinct ways in which that kingship is applied through his two kingdoms, corresponding to the already and not yet, this age and the age to come, in classic eschatological language. Why abandon clarity?
BTW, I have to say you do sound much more biblical than some of the Pastors and Professors I have had to deal with concerning this issue. I am grateful for that.
I appreciate your encouragement. I should also say that I am very grateful for your ecumenical and irenic spirit in all of this, as well as your graciousness in directing the readers from the Puritan Board to my blog. I don’t have time to engage all the comments, so it is nice to have people who know how to represent my views fairly and graciously. This is the kind of conversation I like to have. Thank you!
http://www.allianceradio.org/EternityArticles/KingandKingdom.pdf
This is probably the best definitive short I can offer. It is written by Dr. Roy Blackwood. The site wasn’t working yesterday so I couldn’t post it. It is up now. http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086_CHID560462_CIID2447338,00.html
Pingback: Clarifying a neo-Calvinist understanding of two kingdoms « Cosmic Eye
Pingback: "Old Reformed" views and "Escondido 2K" views of politics