Comments on: The Problem With Westminster’s Two Kingdoms http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/ The Reign of Christ Wed, 07 Jan 2009 03:24:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: stevez http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1088 stevez Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:52:36 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1088 hey, true confessionalism seems to breed healthy ecumenism, i say. i have always enjoyed being tagged as a latent lutheran; never thought i'd enjoy the subtle baptist brand. i will use their language if it suits making a point and not be too squeemish about it. but, honestly, folks, does utilizing their language make a one-to-one correspondance? does my high and institutional view of the Church make me a roman catholic, too? ...i would think you could do better than that. zrim hey, true confessionalism seems to breed healthy ecumenism, i say. i have always enjoyed being tagged as a latent lutheran; never thought i’d enjoy the subtle baptist brand. i will use their language if it suits making a point and not be too squeemish about it. but, honestly, folks, does utilizing their language make a one-to-one correspondance? does my high and institutional view of the Church make me a roman catholic, too?

…i would think you could do better than that.

zrim

]]> By: Andrew Matthews http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1086 Andrew Matthews Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:35:49 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1086 Y'all put a lot of weight on that there Noahic covenant, don'tcha? Now, where have I heard talk about a "parenthetical age" before? Y’all put a lot of weight on that there Noahic covenant, don’tcha?

Now, where have I heard talk about a “parenthetical age” before?

]]> By: Phil http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1084 Phil Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:34:11 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1084 The exilic period was God’s judgment on the Jews for failing to keep the Sabbaths. For what is the Church of Christ under God’s judgment for the past two millennia? And if we are not in this similarity with the Jewish exiles, on what basis should we regard ourselves as necessarily parallel to them? Thus, why should we regard Daniel as our paradigm? He was a wonderful example, but he lived in a time that appears to be substantially unlike ours. Furthermore, the exilic period was not exactly a period of peaceful mingling: we read that “the Jews were to be ready on that day to take vengeance on their enemies” and “to kill all who oppressed them” (Esther 8:13 + Geneva notes). So the exilic period, at least in part, saw a physical and bloody realization of the imprecatory psalms. So at least in Esther 8, the exiled Jews were partial crusaders. As to the patriarchs, Isaac was a pilgrim (Genesis 28:4), yet the Philistines begged him to “Go away from us, for you are much mightier than we” (Genesis 26:16). Thus Isaac, a pilgrim, was regarded as a crusader by the Philistines. So the patriarchal period doesn’t seem to work for W2K either. I know (I think) that you’re not a dispensationalist, so why do you use their trademarked language? I left the language of parenthesis a decade ago for Reformed theology. I really don’t understand your rhetoric. I’m not likely to buy into VanDrunen’s arguments; I worked through his CTJ article on Calvin (“The Two Kingdoms: A Reassessment of the Transformationist Calvin;” CTJ 40), and I thought he had lots of problems; most notably, he failed to account for Calvin’s establishmentarianism. The mantra, “Calvin was just inconsistent,” isn’t an argument. So you might not want to support your argument from him. The exilic period was God’s judgment on the Jews for failing to keep the Sabbaths. For what is the Church of Christ under God’s judgment for the past two millennia? And if we are not in this similarity with the Jewish exiles, on what basis should we regard ourselves as necessarily parallel to them? Thus, why should we regard Daniel as our paradigm? He was a wonderful example, but he lived in a time that appears to be substantially unlike ours.

Furthermore, the exilic period was not exactly a period of peaceful mingling: we read that “the Jews were to be ready on that day to take vengeance on their enemies” and “to kill all who oppressed them” (Esther 8:13 + Geneva notes). So the exilic period, at least in part, saw a physical and bloody realization of the imprecatory psalms. So at least in Esther 8, the exiled Jews were partial crusaders.

As to the patriarchs, Isaac was a pilgrim (Genesis 28:4), yet the Philistines begged him to “Go away from us, for you are much mightier than we” (Genesis 26:16). Thus Isaac, a pilgrim, was regarded as a crusader by the Philistines. So the patriarchal period doesn’t seem to work for W2K either.

I know (I think) that you’re not a dispensationalist, so why do you use their trademarked language? I left the language of parenthesis a decade ago for Reformed theology. I really don’t understand your rhetoric.

I’m not likely to buy into VanDrunen’s arguments; I worked through his CTJ article on Calvin (“The Two Kingdoms: A Reassessment of the Transformationist Calvin;” CTJ 40), and I thought he had lots of problems; most notably, he failed to account for Calvin’s establishmentarianism. The mantra, “Calvin was just inconsistent,” isn’t an argument. So you might not want to support your argument from him.

]]> By: stevez http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1081 stevez Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:54:39 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1081 2. Please concisely demonstrate how the pair, “pilgrims and crusaders,” is a legitimate, biblical dichotomy. Please especially show how we should regard David’s claim to be a pilgrim when it was obvious to the Philistines that he was a crusader. SZ: I would refer, again, to VanDrunen’s monograph “A Biblical Case for Natural Law,” pages 26-32. The general point here is that in the OT we see saints Abraham through Joseph this way: “When it came to life in society, the civil kingdom, Abraham lived according to the idea of commonality established in the Noahic covenant of common grace. When it came to his religious life and eternal hope in the spiritual kingdom, Abraham lived according to the idea of particularity established in the covenant of grace. This pattern continued through the lives of the patriarchs, Abraham [through] Joseph…In the covenant with Moses, the principle of religious particularity…continued. What is striking…however, is that this particularity was extended to the broader cultural realm. While the patriarchs…were separated from the world in regard to their religious life and redemptive hope but mingled with the world in regard to their social and cultural life, the Mosaic covenant separated God’s people from the world in the social and cultural realm as well.” He goes on to explain that instead of aliens they were given their own land, etc. They didn’t mingle and were in fact commanded to exterminate the pagans, that the commonality established by the Noahic covenant was set aside. But this was temporary, an ‘extraordinary situation that God established only for a certain time and place in order to accomplish specific purposes in his redemptive plan and to point ahead to the eternal, heavenly state.” You ask about David. DVD goes on. “What becomes evident in the ongoing story of OT Israel is that this mixing of religious and cultural particularly applied only within the bounds of the Promised Land. When the people of Israel interacted with those living outside these bounds, they dealt with them not according to the principle of cultural particularity established in the Mosaic covenant but according to the principle of cultural commonality established in the Noahic covenant. Kings David and Solomon, during the best days of the Israelite theocracy, had friendly dealings with several foreign monarchs who ruled in lands outside Palestine: Nahash of Ammon, Hiram of Tyre, and the Queen of Sheba (2 Sam. 10:2; 1 Kings 5; 10). Solomon carried on a general commercial trade with nations all around (1 Kings 10:22). Later, the prophet Ezekiel could admire the cultural splendor of Tyre, despite its pagan religion and therefore imminent destruction (Ezek. 26:1-19). Perhaps the clearest examples come in the accounts of God’s people in their Babylonian exile. Here, when banished from the Promised land, they conducted themselves according to the pattern of Abraham and the patriarchs in maintaining religious particularity while observing cultural commonality with the Babylonians…Jeremiah instructed them to engage in all sorts of ordinary cultural practices (building, planting, marrying) while seeking the ‘peace and prosperity’ of the pagan city in which they have now lived (Jer. 29:1-9).” And for our friend Darryl, “…Daniel also provides a helpful exilic example: He received a Babylonian education and faithfully served several Babylonian and Persian kings. Nevertheless, in both the letter of Jeremiah and the life of Daniel, Scripture provides ample evidence that this cultural commonality was not to taint their ongoing religious particularity (see Jer. 29:10-14; Dan. 1:8-16; 3:8-30; 6:1-28).” And that’s the point here. Simply put, the time of the patriarchs mirrors our time, not the time of the Mosaic code. The latter is pointing forward to the consummation, when Christ returns, etc. We live now in that exilic and parenthetical age where we “mingle peacefully.” zrim 2. Please concisely demonstrate how the pair, “pilgrims and crusaders,” is a legitimate, biblical dichotomy. Please especially show how we should regard David’s claim to be a pilgrim when it was obvious to the Philistines that he was a crusader.
SZ: I would refer, again, to VanDrunen’s monograph “A Biblical Case for Natural Law,” pages 26-32. The general point here is that in the OT we see saints Abraham through Joseph this way: “When it came to life in society, the civil kingdom, Abraham lived according to the idea of commonality established in the Noahic covenant of common grace. When it came to his religious life and eternal hope in the spiritual kingdom, Abraham lived according to the idea of particularity established in the covenant of grace. This pattern continued through the lives of the patriarchs, Abraham [through] Joseph…In the covenant with Moses, the principle of religious particularity…continued. What is striking…however, is that this particularity was extended to the broader cultural realm. While the patriarchs…were separated from the world in regard to their religious life and redemptive hope but mingled with the world in regard to their social and cultural life, the Mosaic covenant separated God’s people from the world in the social and cultural realm as well.” He goes on to explain that instead of aliens they were given their own land, etc. They didn’t mingle and were in fact commanded to exterminate the pagans, that the commonality established by the Noahic covenant was set aside. But this was temporary, an ‘extraordinary situation that God established only for a certain time and place in order to accomplish specific purposes in his redemptive plan and to point ahead to the eternal, heavenly state.”
You ask about David. DVD goes on. “What becomes evident in the ongoing story of OT Israel is that this mixing of religious and cultural particularly applied only within the bounds of the Promised Land. When the people of Israel interacted with those living outside these bounds, they dealt with them not according to the principle of cultural particularity established in the Mosaic covenant but according to the principle of cultural commonality established in the Noahic covenant. Kings David and Solomon, during the best days of the Israelite theocracy, had friendly dealings with several foreign monarchs who ruled in lands outside Palestine: Nahash of Ammon, Hiram of Tyre, and the Queen of Sheba (2 Sam. 10:2; 1 Kings 5; 10). Solomon carried on a general commercial trade with nations all around (1 Kings 10:22). Later, the prophet Ezekiel could admire the cultural splendor of Tyre, despite its pagan religion and therefore imminent destruction (Ezek. 26:1-19). Perhaps the clearest examples come in the accounts of God’s people in their Babylonian exile. Here, when banished from the Promised land, they conducted themselves according to the pattern of Abraham and the patriarchs in maintaining religious particularity while observing cultural commonality with the Babylonians…Jeremiah instructed them to engage in all sorts of ordinary cultural practices (building, planting, marrying) while seeking the ‘peace and prosperity’ of the pagan city in which they have now lived (Jer. 29:1-9).”
And for our friend Darryl, “…Daniel also provides a helpful exilic example: He received a Babylonian education and faithfully served several Babylonian and Persian kings. Nevertheless, in both the letter of Jeremiah and the life of Daniel, Scripture provides ample evidence that this cultural commonality was not to taint their ongoing religious particularity (see Jer. 29:10-14; Dan. 1:8-16; 3:8-30; 6:1-28).”
And that’s the point here. Simply put, the time of the patriarchs mirrors our time, not the time of the Mosaic code. The latter is pointing forward to the consummation, when Christ returns, etc. We live now in that exilic and parenthetical age where we “mingle peacefully.”

zrim

]]> By: Phil http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1077 Phil Wed, 27 Jun 2007 04:22:20 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1077 1. As soon as one acknowledges idolatry in politics and television, he concedes my point: there *can* be idolatry in the left-hand kingdom. And that’s confessional: we are “wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body,” including the parts of our lives lived in the left-hand kingdom. That’s why we desperately need Christ’s redemptive work in the left-hand kingdoms, too. 2. Please concisely demonstrate how the pair, “pilgrims and crusaders,” is a legitimate, biblical dichotomy. Please especially show how we should regard David’s claim to be a pilgrim when it was obvious to the Philistines that he was a crusader. 1. As soon as one acknowledges idolatry in politics and television, he concedes my point: there *can* be idolatry in the left-hand kingdom. And that’s confessional: we are “wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body,” including the parts of our lives lived in the left-hand kingdom. That’s why we desperately need Christ’s redemptive work in the left-hand kingdoms, too.

2. Please concisely demonstrate how the pair, “pilgrims and crusaders,” is a legitimate, biblical dichotomy. Please especially show how we should regard David’s claim to be a pilgrim when it was obvious to the Philistines that he was a crusader.

]]> By: stevez http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1076 stevez Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:28:15 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1076 “W2K isn’t prepared to confront idols in politics and television, for instance, because it doesn’t see any.” I come from a W2K POV and I see idols aplenty. They tend to show up when the kingdoms are collapsed and deliberations begin about how the 1 kingdom ought to shake out—something that has to be done, of course, once the kingdoms are collapsed. They end up sounding a lot like very particular traditions of men and claiming that God backs them up. The GOP, for example, is then God’s Own Politics. Trouble is that there are other hosts of folks who do the same collapsing and make the same claim that God backs them up. So who is right? For my money, were I to follow this horrid collapsing, I daresay the lefty liberationists win the day: it’s all about freeing the oppressed, setting prisoners free, eradicating poverty, pacifism, the welfare state, minority over majority, etc. and so forth. I find nary an argument in Scripture for anything Newt or any hawk might trumpet. For that matter, I find nothing about democracy or capitalism, but plenty for monarchy. Perhaps the whole American experiment is unbiblical (?). But I do not follow such a lawless collapsing. The Gospel is antithetical to every, single tradition of men and will not share its throne or glory, as it were, with any of these. To suggest that it does is to tell Jesus Himself to get up and move a bit further to the back of the room in order to make way for us as we sit in judgment over Scripture itself. What’s that about God being jealous? Seems to me that the collapsing is exactly what idolatry is: speaking for God where he has not spoken in order to prop up one’s mere opinion, however persuaded one might be. There’s having a perspective on how the world ought to shake out in the here and how; that’s one thing. But then there’s this inevitable idolatry that comes when kingdoms are collapsed. And as far as references to OT “pilgrims and crusaders” and transformationism’s inability to grasp fulfillment, etc. VanDrunens’s monograph on natural law should clear that all up. The NT interprets the OT, and in the latter I see absolutely no call to crusade but only to pilgrimage. I realize that frustrates to no end the visions of transformationists of every stripe and brand, but that crusade and pilgrimage are called false dichotomies is a tortured attempt to explain away the foolishness of the Gospel. steve “W2K isn’t prepared to confront idols in politics and television, for instance, because it doesn’t see any.”

I come from a W2K POV and I see idols aplenty. They tend to show up when the kingdoms are collapsed and deliberations begin about how the 1 kingdom ought to shake out—something that has to be done, of course, once the kingdoms are collapsed. They end up sounding a lot like very particular traditions of men and claiming that God backs them up. The GOP, for example, is then God’s Own Politics. Trouble is that there are other hosts of folks who do the same collapsing and make the same claim that God backs them up. So who is right? For my money, were I to follow this horrid collapsing, I daresay the lefty liberationists win the day: it’s all about freeing the oppressed, setting prisoners free, eradicating poverty, pacifism, the welfare state, minority over majority, etc. and so forth. I find nary an argument in Scripture for anything Newt or any hawk might trumpet. For that matter, I find nothing about democracy or capitalism, but plenty for monarchy. Perhaps the whole American experiment is unbiblical (?). But I do not follow such a lawless collapsing. The Gospel is antithetical to every, single tradition of men and will not share its throne or glory, as it were, with any of these. To suggest that it does is to tell Jesus Himself to get up and move a bit further to the back of the room in order to make way for us as we sit in judgment over Scripture itself. What’s that about God being jealous?

Seems to me that the collapsing is exactly what idolatry is: speaking for God where he has not spoken in order to prop up one’s mere opinion, however persuaded one might be. There’s having a perspective on how the world ought to shake out in the here and how; that’s one thing. But then there’s this inevitable idolatry that comes when kingdoms are collapsed.

And as far as references to OT “pilgrims and crusaders” and transformationism’s inability to grasp fulfillment, etc. VanDrunens’s monograph on natural law should clear that all up. The NT interprets the OT, and in the latter I see absolutely no call to crusade but only to pilgrimage. I realize that frustrates to no end the visions of transformationists of every stripe and brand, but that crusade and pilgrimage are called false dichotomies is a tortured attempt to explain away the foolishness of the Gospel.

steve

]]> By: Phil http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1073 Phil Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:58:29 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1073 "In fact, I submit that the constant need to redeem creation, whether politics, plumbing or television, comes from an insufficient appreciation of the goodness of creation — as if it’s sinful and needs salvation." The problem with W2K here is that politics, plumbing, and television are not some kind of Robinson Crusoe void of influence from human minds. Rather, politics, plumbing, and television are a composite of God's good (but broken) creation PLUS whatever man-the-idol-factory does. Remove the human element, and politics, plumbing, and television disappear. Because of this human element, we may find idols in any human endeavor. W2K isn't prepared to confront idols in politics and television, for instance, because it doesn't see any. “In fact, I submit that the constant need to redeem creation, whether politics, plumbing or television, comes from an insufficient appreciation of the goodness of creation — as if it’s sinful and needs salvation.”

The problem with W2K here is that politics, plumbing, and television are not some kind of Robinson Crusoe void of influence from human minds. Rather, politics, plumbing, and television are a composite of God’s good (but broken) creation PLUS whatever man-the-idol-factory does. Remove the human element, and politics, plumbing, and television disappear. Because of this human element, we may find idols in any human endeavor.

W2K isn’t prepared to confront idols in politics and television, for instance, because it doesn’t see any.

]]> By: Phil http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1072 Phil Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:32:56 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1072 "In fact, I submit that the constant need to redeem creation, whether politics, plumbing or television, comes from an insufficient appreciation of the goodness of creation — as if it’s sinful and needs salvation." On the contrary, the "whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies." Just like believers, all of creation "groan[s] inwardly" awaiting "adoption." Our bodies are groaning until "the redemption" of creation. This does not affirm that the created order is evil as if we were Manichaean--why do W2K folks keep saying this without evidence? But creation certainly is conflicted. “In fact, I submit that the constant need to redeem creation, whether politics, plumbing or television, comes from an insufficient appreciation of the goodness of creation — as if it’s sinful and needs salvation.”

On the contrary, the “whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.”

Just like believers, all of creation “groan[s] inwardly” awaiting “adoption.” Our bodies are groaning until “the redemption” of creation.

This does not affirm that the created order is evil as if we were Manichaean–why do W2K folks keep saying this without evidence? But creation certainly is conflicted.

]]> By: Phil http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1071 Phil Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:24:48 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-1071 "We're pilgrims, not crusaders." But that's a problem for several biblical reasons: 1. Even when the Jews were commanded to "seek the peace of the city" because they were under God's judgment (unlike today), they still led a crusade against many Persians: "no one could stand against them, for the fear of them had fallen on all peoples" (Esther 9:2). Thus the dispersed Jews, pilgrims, still acted as crusaders. 2. King David, after he led many crusades against the enemies of God, still wrote that he was "a sojourner with you, a guest, like all my fathers" (Psalm 39:12). Thus David the crusader was a pilgrim. 3. Isaac was a pilgrim (Genesis 28:4), yet the Philistines begged him to "Go away from us, for you are much mightier than we" (Genesis 26:16). Thus Isaac, a pilgrim, was regarded as a crusader by the Philistines. It seems that "pilgrim-crusader" is a false dichotomy--certainly not a biblical one. Life is more complicated than this. We are called to be both. “We’re pilgrims, not crusaders.” But that’s a problem for several biblical reasons:

1. Even when the Jews were commanded to “seek the peace of the city” because they were under God’s judgment (unlike today), they still led a crusade against many Persians: “no one could stand against them, for the fear of them had fallen on all peoples” (Esther 9:2). Thus the dispersed Jews, pilgrims, still acted as crusaders.

2. King David, after he led many crusades against the enemies of God, still wrote that he was “a sojourner with you, a guest, like all my fathers” (Psalm 39:12). Thus David the crusader was a pilgrim.

3. Isaac was a pilgrim (Genesis 28:4), yet the Philistines begged him to “Go away from us, for you are much mightier than we” (Genesis 26:16). Thus Isaac, a pilgrim, was regarded as a crusader by the Philistines.

It seems that “pilgrim-crusader” is a false dichotomy–certainly not a biblical one. Life is more complicated than this. We are called to be both.

]]> By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-851 D Hart Sun, 20 May 2007 02:26:58 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/05/12/the-problem-with-westminsters-two-kingdoms/#comment-851 (Bill, shame on you.) I deny practically everything Mr. Matthews attributes to me. I believe God's will prevails. Can Mr. Matthews say such for Saddam Hussein or for the Iraq War (which one)? How would he know? I think Christendom far better than the Roman Empire. But did the U.S. of A. do anything significant? At least the Covenanters here didn't have to worry about "killing times." And I deny that the created order is evil. In fact, I submit that the constant need to redeem creation, whether politics, plumbing or television, comes from an insufficient appreciation of the goodness of creation -- as if it's sinful and needs salvation. The problem as I see it is that the non-two kingdom folks can't recognize that cultural and political goods are proximate rather than ultimate goods. That was a crucial component of Roman Catholicism's error, and it afflicts everyone who continues to pine for Christendom. We're pilgrims, not crusaders. (Bill, shame on you.) I deny practically everything Mr. Matthews attributes to me. I believe God’s will prevails. Can Mr. Matthews say such for Saddam Hussein or for the Iraq War (which one)? How would he know? I think Christendom far better than the Roman Empire. But did the U.S. of A. do anything significant? At least the Covenanters here didn’t have to worry about “killing times.” And I deny that the created order is evil. In fact, I submit that the constant need to redeem creation, whether politics, plumbing or television, comes from an insufficient appreciation of the goodness of creation — as if it’s sinful and needs salvation. The problem as I see it is that the non-two kingdom folks can’t recognize that cultural and political goods are proximate rather than ultimate goods. That was a crucial component of Roman Catholicism’s error, and it afflicts everyone who continues to pine for Christendom.

We’re pilgrims, not crusaders.

]]>