The problem with radical “two kingdom theology” as being espoused by Kline, Hart, et al….
The problem?
Well, I’m not talking about content. I’m not talking about why I disagree with it, why I think the Bible says something different.
So far, go here, here, and here for that.
No, the problem I’m talking about is that it isn’t historically Christian. It isn’t historically Reformed. It is not anything except some new idea that is being sold as it if is the self-evident tradition of Protestants.
Precedents? Are you serious?
Oh wait, there was the change in the Westminster Standards on the civil magistrate that happened to be made by Americans the same year as the Constitutional Convention. That’s ancient history and undoubtedly the result of sober Bible study. But, even so, the change doesn’t give us R3Kt and they forgot to be complete if that was their aim (the questions and answers on the Lord’s prayer, for example).
Wait! What about Luther’s “two kingdoms”?
Right.
R2Kt is firmly rooted in Luther’s theology and Ayn Rand was nothing more than a Aristotelian philosopher. Get real. If Luther’s politics were implemented today the world would assume that we were suffering under sharia law. Modern secular “Reformed” versions of “Lutheranism” are not credible.
Far be it from me to idolize tradition, but I’d like some honesty about historic orthodoxy here.
I think I just read someone claiming that a session could rightly discipline (someone with a lovely name) for what she did in her own body in terms of abortion or fornication, but not for how she voted.
Since I find myself unable to believe that someone thinks that operating a touch screen is not a use of a woman’s body or something that she does “in herself,” I’m forced to conclude that I didn’t actually read that, and just dreamt it or something.
Have you heard of Augustine?
Yes, he asked the Empire to use coercive force against the Donatists.
Thanks Steve. I was thinking that my Ayn-Rand-to-Aristotle point had already denuded this kind of thing. But that is even better.
I would think that there were plenty of precedents among the Anabaptists.
Steven, how could Augustine have asked an empire that had fallen to act against the Donatists? Wasn’t the point of The City of God to take into account what happens after the empire and what does that mean for Christianity? But if you’re so comfortable with using the state against false belief, do you think the U.S. should make Utah a territory again? Or maybe you have a lot more two-k in you than you think. See, it doesn’t hurt so bad.
Dr. Hart,
The Empire did not fall all at once. Surely you know that it limped on for quite a while.
Augustine appealed to his local Count for coercive force, it is true. See here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102185.htm
This is fairly well-known too, especially Augustine’s use of the verse “compel them to come in.” The whole Middle Ages is an outworking of Augustine’s Two Cities concept, with the various heads of each city (falsely understood at times) warring against one another. You can read about this in O’Donovan’s *From Irenaeus to Grotius* or even Kantorowicz’s *The King’s Two Bodies.*
Indeed, who did our Reformers appeal to but their kings? They subjugated the visible church to the crown. They said that discipline and order was *law* and thus the king’s concern. Personal salvation was *gospel,* however, and so they typically said that belief could not be coerced.
I actually do hold to the Reformed 2 Kingdoms view. You could read something I’ve written on it in the past: http://thebasilica.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/reformation-and-the-two-kingdoms-of-christendom/
And of course, with Utah the U.S. did make at least one demand that interfered with Mormon piety: the cessation of polygamy. The magistrate has to decide which principles fall under external law and which are internal gospel, but this in no way implies a lack of Biblically informed statecraft in the process.