two kingdom baloney

[sam]

http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2010/02 ... chapter-2/

[thomas covenant]

Petrarch was a patriarch ?

[sam]

http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2010/02 ... chapter-3/

[sam]

http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2010/02 ... chapter-4/

[thomas covenant]

The two kingdoms are not the Church and the State. They are also not the righteous things and the unrighteous things. In fact, what we regularly call “the Church” itself belongs to both kingdoms, with the visible church dwelling in the kingdom of this world and the invisible church dwelling in the eternal kingdom

[sam]

http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2010/03 ... chapter-5/

[sam]

"If you can learn about the essential importance of the Trinity from the Great Commission, and yet mock the need for cultural transformation, you should apply to teach at a Reformed seminary and may even be qualified as a Protestant witch hunter." - Mark Horne

[sam]

Is Geerhardus Vos a Transformationalist?
from Wedgewords by Steven Wedgeworth

Typically I think of Vos as the granddaddy of modern Reformed Amillennialism. Many of his spiritual descendants are now representing the radical 2 kingdoms theology, which denies any visible cultural difference between believer and non-believer in the non-ecclesiastical realms. While his Amillennialism is still likely impeccable, I recently discovered a section in Vos which would place him well outside the non-interventionist sub-school of Amillennialism that looms so large today. In The Kingdom of God and the Church, Vos sounds downright Kuyperian. Here are some examples:

Undoubtedly the kingship of God, as his recognized and applied supremacy, is intended to pervade and control the whole of human life in all its forms of existence. This the parable of the leaven plainly teaches. These various forms of human life have each their own sphere in which they work and embody themselves. There is a sphere of science, a sphere of art, a sphere of the family and of the state, a sphere of commerce and industry. Whenever one of these spheres comes under the controlling principle of the divine supremacy and glory, and this outwardly reveals itself, there we can truly say that the kingdom of God has become manifest. -pg. 87-88, P&R 1972 ed.

Even more strongly, Vos writes:

And what is true of the relation between church and state, may also be applied to the relation between the visible church and the various other branches into which the organic life of humanity divides itself. It is entirely in accordance to subsume these under the kingdom of God and to co-ordinate them with the visible church as true manifestations of this kingdom, in so far as the divine sovereignty and glory have become in them the controlling principle. But it must always be remembered that the latter can only happen, when all of these, no less than the visible church, stand in living contact with the forces of regeneration supernaturally introduced into the world by the Spirit of God. While it is proper to seperate between the visible church and such things as the Christian state, Christian art, Christian science, etc., these things, if they truly belong to the kingdom of God, grow up out of the regenerated life of the invisible church. -pg. 89

While Vos clearly wants to distinguish Christendom from the visible Church (as he should) , he does not shy away from the concept itself. Notice that at the beginning of his list is “the Christian state.” This is consistent with the old Two Kingdoms theology of the Reformers. It is not consistent with the new version today.

[sam]

Where There Are No Sidelines
from Blog and Mablog by Douglas Wilson

God has fashioned the world in such a way that we always have to come down to the point. However much we might want to obscure the issues, however much we might build great universities with trained brains to cover everything in a dark mist, however much we reward those pundits who make ample room for our lusts and opinions, at the end of the day, we have to decide if we are going to do it God's way, or not.

Everything we do must be done to the glory of God. If a man argues in favor of a certain form of government, then a Christian must, in the final analysis, argue that God wants him to argue in favor of that form of government. If God doesn't want that, then why is he doing it? If God does want it, how does he know? And if, in his system of theology, God doesn't give a rip, why does he call his system of theology Christian?

So there we are. Say, just for a random example, a Christian wants to argue in favor of a secular government. I know, crazy talk, but sometimes you have to use extreme examples to make a point. That Christian either has to say that God doesn't want government to be secular, but that he, the secular Christian, wants it anyway, which is disobedience, or that God does want secular government, and "let me show you all the places in the Bible where God warns kings and princes about the importance of making sure they never acknowledge Him in any of their ways," which is exegetically incoherent, or he must show us in the Bible that some form of Deism is true, which is false.

Convoluted political theology doesn't like to be pinned down this way, but this is what it amounts to. If Baal is god, follow him. If YHWH is God, follow Him. There are no third party movements on Mt. Carmel. Everybody is in the game, and there are no sidelines. So what's it gonna be?

[Johnny!]

http://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&tit ... &tb=1&pb=1