tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post7606540403579305055..comments2024-03-07T06:52:34.516+00:00Comments on Exiled Preacher: Living in God's Two Kingdoms by David VanDrunen Guy Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-36187302127840621232014-09-05T17:01:15.359+01:002014-09-05T17:01:15.359+01:00"We will cheerfully admit that 2K advocates h..."We will cheerfully admit that 2K advocates have some legitimate concerns, particularly that the mission and witness of the church not be hijacked by political and cultural agendas. But in this instance the cure is worse than the disease. While 2K theology may well scratch the itch of Christians who need a theological excuse to remain silent in current cultural conflicts, it is both less than biblical and less than faithful to the decided weight of the Reformed tradition."<br />http://theecclesialcalvinist.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/the-two-kingdoms-theology-and-christians-today/<br /><br />To quote Calvin Beisner: "two kingdoms" theory for the 16th and 17th century Scots was NOT what neo-2K (Escondido) theory is today. Today's neo-2K theory essentially says the Bible teaches nothing about shaping the social/political order and that the "spirituality of the pastoral call" prohibits pastors' preaching and teaching anything about public policy. Both of those are about as far opposed to the Scottish Presbyterians' thought as can be imagined. (My Ph.D. was in Scottish history, specifically on the political thought of the late 17th-century Covenanters, and involved a thorough reading of the whole history, in primary documents, of the Calvinist Resistance Theory aspect of the monarchomachs.)<br /><br />Just in case anyone wonders: I'm most definitely not a Theonomist, and proclaimed myself publicly thus in an appendix to my book PROSPERITY AND POVERTY back in 1988. The Theonomists forget that the judicial/civil law was given to Israel as a body politic THAT WAS ALSO a "church under age." There is no such body politic today, anywhere, so the civil law doesn't obligate any people beyond the principles of equity (justice, the moral law) reflected in it."<br /><br />This is also worth reading on it.<br />http://reformedlibertarian.com/blog/2k-theology-and-theonomy/<br /><br />Personalty I believe this is a dangerous doctrine that makes the Church ineffective as salt and light in this dark sinful world.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10192290231415424305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-83192397812137672282014-09-05T12:50:35.194+01:002014-09-05T12:50:35.194+01:00Ian Hamilton did not give a paper at the JOC confe...Ian Hamilton did not give a paper at the JOC conference - I just know he agrees with Garry from comments he has made.<br /><br />I entirely agree with the need for a Christian presence in the public square - and I don't read van Drunen as denying this. His work is a much needed shot across the bows of much over hyped stuff about transformation etc , even if one does no go all the way with him.<br /><br />Mostyn.Mostyn Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11813875470448809096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-12914575056686637982014-09-05T12:32:37.214+01:002014-09-05T12:32:37.214+01:00Hi Mostyn,
When Garry led a seminar on the covt o...Hi Mostyn,<br /><br />When Garry led a seminar on the covt of redemption at our fraternal he hinted that he saw the Nohaic covt as redemptive, but didn't develop the point. I'll have to have a look at Ian and Garry's papers. I also have VanD's smaller work on natural law on my 'to read' list. Whatever his view, I believe that there is a place for biblically derived truth in the public square. Guy Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184743462264437085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17617194.post-73612956115101305802014-09-05T09:31:34.395+01:002014-09-05T09:31:34.395+01:00Guy,
I like this and I liked the book. We read it...Guy,<br /><br />I like this and I liked the book. We read it as our John Owen Theology Study Group book one meeting last summer and I think we all agreed with its main thesis. But Garry Williams , Ian Hamilton and others strongly disagree with it - they see it as dualistic, and Garry in his papers on Noah at the John Owen conference last September (probably available online at the JOC website) strongly criticised it. Garry sees the Noah covenant as redemptive and therefore not a creation covenant as van Drunen sees it.<br /><br />The issue for van Drunen is to answer the question: from what source does society outside the church draw its norms? Natural Law? Is that adequate? His bigger book 'Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms' deals historically with this but it is a big issue. <br /><br />Paul Helm agrees with van Drunen too by the way.<br /><br />Mostyn.Mostyn Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11813875470448809096noreply@blogger.com