This topic is being discussed and exposed a bit finally. Finally, it is being done with some balance and correct thinking. There are a few posts in this discussion “One Kingdom vs. Two Kingdom’s” on the Puritanboard which lead to some great comments and links. One link is an interview with Dr. Jack Kinneer who is a Professor at Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary discussing this topic.
It is found here.
Listening to the interview with Dr. Jack Kinneer I walked away with this…
Here are very brief Stereo-Typical ways of understanding these issues according to the Host of the show.
The Non Two Kingdom View is a Tranformationalist and or a Theonomic view saying, “If we can just make the culture Christian everything will Change and Christ’s Kingdom will come.”
The Two Kingdom view says that Culture Transformation is not the job of the Church. The Church receives the Kingdom. It doesn’t create one. The job of the Church is to take the sacraments, hear the word preached, be fathers and mothers and plumbers and just go on with our life. If Jesus wants to do something through it and for us He can.
Those are the two extremes…
The Host then asks Dr. Kinneer if his definitions are correct.
Dr. Jack Kinneer of Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
“What you have is the American A view and the American B view.”
What you don’t have is the Historical C view.
Amen Dr. Kinneer! That is what I have been trying to tell some of the guys who are writing and discussing this issue now days.
Also Dr. Kinneer notes, that as all aberrations and heresies in theology tend to distort the doctrine of Christ, some of the of Two Kingdoms teachers distort the doctrine of Christ (Christology) also. A lot depends on how you define Two Kingdoms Theology. I believe it should be called a two fold government, to be more precise.
Both definitions the host defined were basically true but fall short of the Historical doctrine. And I would declare that the most vocal Modern Day Reformed Church Seminary Professors have no idea what the Historic view is. I deduce this by what I am hearing come out of the mouths of today’s Seminary Students, Graduates, and their Professor’s writings and comments. I can also assess this by the personal discussions I have been having with these men and younger theologians who have been taught by these guys.
These Authors and Professors are arguing against a view that is easily knocked down by their arguments. When they finally start to deal with the Historical view that Dr. Kinneer is declaring then their arguments will start to hit a brick wall. For one thing the historical view is not liberal and that is one of the main associations attributed to One Kingdom Theology.
This issue has a root problem in my estimation. It is the Law / Gospel issue that is being discussed in the Reformed Church. Some people are separating the Law so far from life and the gospel that the very Gospel of Christ is being truncated. They have gone from one extreme of refuting self-justification (works righteousness) to something that is turning into antinomianism. They view Sanctification and Glorification as separate from the Gospel. Dr. Michael Horton and many others around him teach that the Gospel is only an outward declarative statement about what God has done to pay a penalty for sin. According to past interaction with these guys, those of us who hold to the view the Reformed Divine’s held to, that the Law turns into Gospel, are in “Serious Error.” They are divorcing the Law of Christ from the Gospel. They are also divorcing the work of Christ in us, the hope of Glory and a life of being conformed in the image of Christ, from the Gospel.
The root problem in a lot of this is a poor Christology (understanding His Mediatorial Kingship) and a poor understanding of the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace administers both the Old and New Covenant. Some say the Old Covenant is not the same in substance as the New Covenant. According to them the Mosaic Covenant differs in substance from the Abrahamic Covenant also. They say that only the Abrahamic Covenant is renewed in the New Covenant. This is in direct contradiction to the Westminster Confession of faith Chapter 7 sections 5 and 6 which states that they are of the same substance as they are administrations of the Covenant of Grace. The Old Covenant is the same in substance as the New and Abrahamic Covenant because they are Administrations of the Covenant of Grace. The same people that are saying this are the same people voicing this Newer Natural Law / Two Kingdom model that is being criticized here. At the root they all have Meredith Kline as a Mentor and hold to his thought concerning the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. Dr. R. Scott Clark voices it in his Covenant Theses point 13 of Biblical / Exegetical section. In so doing all this they are becoming Lutheran in their view of the Mosaic Covenant and saying that the Law is opposed to the Gospel. This is having a terrible affect upon the Church and Society in my estimation. They are dichotomizing the law and the gospel in a way that the scriptures don’t. Even Anthony Burgess a Divine and Scottish Commissioner of the Westminster Confession of Faith recognized this problem of the Lutherans back then. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/lutheran-reformed-differences-back-during-the-time-of-the-westminster-divines/
Oh yeah, they may claim to have a majority of the old guys as their teachers but they are propagating them through the eyes of a few who held to minority views or Klinean eye wear. The below is where you can find Dr. Clark’s thoughts.
Biblical / Exegetical section….
13.The Mosaic covenant was not renewed under Christ, but the Abrahamic covenant was.
Some have titled this theology Klhortian I call it Modern Reformed Thought because a lot of Western California Guys have adopted it and are promoting it with their media machine. It is a shame this is being propagated so loudly. It kind of reminds me of how dispensationalism got such a strong hold by media presentation through the Scoffield Reference Bible. I think I have made my point.
I hope I am understanding things aright. Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy are so closely linked. I believe this is being proven in this situation. May we all be graced by the King and have eyes to see and ears to hear what the Spirit is saying. I hope I am seeing and hearing correctly. Weigh what I say heavily. Don’t just accept it as truth. I am a man. I can be just as deceived as I believe others to be.
As a side note and recommendation this will be a topic in the upcoming Confessional Presbyterian Journal. It won’t be Polemic as I have been because it will be done by Scholars from various sides of the issue if I am not mistaken. I am not a Scholar. Please Remember That! But that doesn’t make anything I have said any less true. Just weigh it more heavily. LOL
The Confessional Presbyterian Journal should be out sometime this Winter. Here is the link to it.