Two-Kingdom Theology is in the news these days. For many it has become a threat to their view of Christ redeeming culture. Some of these critics have resorted to the ad-hominen attacks to discredit it. Terms like "Radical Two-Kingdom Theology", "Impotent", "Lutheranism" and more have been used to dismiss it from serious consideration.
R. Scott Clark recently interviewed David VanDrunen on his latest book, Living in God's Two Kingdoms. In this fast-paced half hour you will get a thumbnail sketch of what Two Kingdom Theology is and what it isn't.
As usual, it is best to get your information directly from the source. Click on the link below and listen for yourself. You might be surprised to learn that Two Kingdom Theology is neither new nor dangerous. You might also come away with a higher view of the visible church.
Office Hours: VanDrunen on Living in God’s Two Kingdoms « Heidelblog
7 comments:
I'm really enjoying this book. I think I'll be giving it for Christmas this year.
David,
Have all its critics resorted to ad hominem attacks?
Or do you think there is some genuine concern out there that this is a departure from an historic understanding of the Reformed faith?
Ken,
Ad hominem - Good point - I've corrected the post.
I agree that there is genuine concern out there though I think that it is rooted in unfamiliarity with the topic and with what constitutes the 'historic understanding of the Reformed faith?'
To me it sounds like 'historic' is in the eye of the beholder. WCF 25.2 speaks of the church as 'the visible kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ.' This is pretty much what VanDrunen is saying.
I am still trying to get my head around it all.
All conservative Reformed Christians believe in two kingdoms, of course. The real question is how the two interact, and to what extent one has to do with the other.
Discerning tendencies is a dangerous business (though Van Drunen does so of transformationalists with aplomb), but there does appear to be a tendency among some two kingdom folk to argue that the law of God is of no wider application in the culture, and (on abortion and other such matters) Christians are free to differ. I think that is a dangerous trend.
I haven't finished the book yet, though, so I am reserving final judgment.
Ken,
You're a step ahead of me with regard to the book. I am also withholding judgment as there is a lot to digest.
With regard to the moral law and its application to non-Christians, I think VanDrunen and others would say that it is applicable. Where he might disagree is how Christians apply the moral law in the public arena. My guess is that he would argue that a Christian ought to employ natural law instead of quoting Scripture to enact legislation and affect public policy. Such an appeal is directly to the moral law written on everyone's heart (Romans 1) but is also being suppressed.
It's interesting how both Barth and Van Til were influenced by Herman Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics, but both took a different side on things. In the theological world as a whole if I could describe it that way, Barth is a giant right behind Calvin and I know some won't like to hear that, but it's true when one steps out of the U.S. I personally haven't read Barth yet, but only Van Til so far. I plan on reading Bavinck's work before any of Barth though.
Ken E.,
I posted a comment regarding Barth but for some reason it got lost.
See the essay in "Always Reformed": Essays in Honor of W. Robert Godfrey (R. Scott Clark and Joel E. Kim) by Ryan Glomsrud on Barth. Though some find him fascinating he is/was anything but 'reformed.' He bears the label but never embraced the theology or confessed any historic confession.
Post a Comment