I'm referring specifically to the conclusion of the
discussion beginning at about 53:00.
Recently I was listening to this podcast and the guest, a
fairly well known professor at Mid-America Reformed Seminary (MARS) tried to
add the nail to the coffin with regard to 'radical' forms of Two Kingdom
Theology... those espoused by people like me.
He attacked the doctrine, not utilising Biblical exegesis but
in terms of coherence.
And yet even this attack was shall we say unique. He attacked
it on the basis of a failure to bring about interaction between
plurality/universality and particularity.
In other words in his mind Two Kingdom's fails because it
isn't properly structured with regard to the Problem of Universals or the One
and the Many.
He argued, even insisted for 'Interaction'. He seemed to mean
there has to be a bridging concept (a synthesis) that brings about resolution
or harmony, a way for tensions to function in a state of unified symbiosis.
This would be opposed to the 'radical' Two Kingdom notion of
Antithesis- that the Church and the World are separate and never shall the
twain meet. This view argues the reconciliation (or synthesis) is Eschatological
Judgment and the purging as by fire. In other words reconciliation is the absolute
elimination of one aspect of the binary tension. The New Heavens and Earth, the
redemption and consummation are not a case of harmonisation or even
purification but deconstruction/reconstruction, re-creation and regeneration.
The reconciliation in Scripture is either through propitiation and union with
Christ or it's through judicious wrath... the extraction of payment due... the
reconciling of a debt (to Christ) that can never be fully paid. The
reconciliation of the wicked comes in the form of conformity, the bowing of the
knee to Christ Jesus, the acknowledgement of guilt (through gritted cursing
teeth to be sure) and finally, eternal fire.
He utterly misses the antithesis and seems to suggest we have
to create theological frameworks that allow us to work toward reconciling the
world system, integrating it (in some form) with the Holy Kingdom.
It is a purely Sacralist assumption, rooted in philosophical
commitment, speculation and is without exegetical foundation. He's against Ecclesiastical
Establishment... but not really. It's simply a question of whether or not it's
formalised.
Rutherford and Gillespie as well as Thornwell and both Hodges
were wrong. AA Hodge's trajectory raises an eyebrow. It shouldn't. It's
consistent but still wrong and demonstrates his inflexibility and failure to
examine his context in light of Scripture.
Certain assumptions regarding the nature of the Kingdom (and
of God) are imported into the text of Scripture. While Scripture is 'officially'
elevated it is actually subjugated and (ironically) integrated into a philosophical framework, a rationalist system
that resorts to speculation and rests heavily on inference.
In this case the Problem of the Universals (as opposed to the
Text) drives the question. Or, it could be argued that in this case, the
philosopher's toolkit has been raided and it is being used as a device to
charge Two Kingdom theology with incoherence.
But I would also ask, why does universality have to be found
in some kind of integration between the Church's antithesis and the temporal
state?
The professor appeals to the Trinity and the Incarnation as
examples of this. Apparently they serve as paradigms for the whole of theology.
Amen, but I'm surprised to hear him of all people say it.
Does he really mean this? Generally I encounter a great deal
of hostility when I argue the duality present in the Incarnation affects the
whole of theology. I would also argue the Two Kingdoms position accurately reflects
this principle as well. I found it strange that he would make such an appeal.
I would hope he realises these analogies will break down.
In the Incarnation plurality and particularity are expressed
by declaring two natures in one person.... Does the New Testament teach the
state and the kingdoms of this world find unity with the Church, the Kingdom
not of this world? Is this a teaching found in the New Testament?
This is once more an instance of One Kingdom theology, a
monistic structure in which This Age becomes 'holy'... again it's not derived
from the text, but from philosophical necessity and certainly from tradition.
I would say the Incarnation has been abused in this case and
is being employed as a philosopher's tool and the paradigm... pagan baggage and
all... is being re-infused into Christian doctrine.
Typically we tell Jehovah's Witnesses that the Trinity is not
pagan, not rooted in Hellenistic philosophy. I'm afraid in this case, the
modern day Watchtower Arians are being given some ammunition, because this argument
seems to vindicate their claims.
Ironically his appeals (and answers) to Eutychianism and
Nestorianism remind me not of orthodox Christology but an integration producing
a tertium quid. His answer to
Nestorianism would (by philosophical necessity) result in a form of
Eutychianism. The singularity of person does not reconcile the natures and
create a coherence. It's rightly referred to as a mystical union, something
which defies categorisation.
Evaluating the Incarnation in terms of logical coherence and
its demonstrability is a perilous road. I don't usually hear this emphasis
outside the circles of Gordon Clark and those of like mind. Of course, Clark's
Antiochan-style Rationalism led indeed to Nestorianism and in the realm of the
Trinity... that road leads to either Modalism or rank Unitarianism. Such is the
consequence of equating finite and reductionist coherences with Divine
Revelatory Mysteries.
Frankly I find the analogy between the Church-State
relationship and the hypostatic union to be not just akin to sacrilege but
staggering in its conceited attempt to dissect the Godhead and reduce the Deity
to some kind of philosophical principle. I'm afraid the analogy tells us more
about his view of God rather than shedding any real light on the salient
question.
But what about the Trinity? Does God's Tri-unity provide an
analogy for the Church's relationship to the world and the state?
Perhaps Latin Trinitarian Theology comes into play at this
point.... is the Kingdom now presented in a type of modalism, sometimes the
temporal state, sometimes the eternal eschatological kingdom? Is the state
equally ultimate with the Church? Will he charge us with Subordination if we
order the Church first in terms of eternal and eschatological priority? What of
authority and revelation? How do these questions play into the equation without
falling into Subordination?
He seems to think his appeal avoids these snares. In fact
he's opened the door to them through his analogy.
Once again we seem caught in a theological morass. This is
what happens when you stray from the text and try to build theological systems
made of paper castles.
At one point he dwells on authority of confessional standards
as if this is the end of the matter. Let all arguments cease, right?
That's the real issue here, even during the larger tortured
discussion on Presbyterian intricacies. These men are committed to institution
and tradition, as opposed to the Holy Text and sometimes it shows... painfully.
His final appeal to Acts 17 struck me as patronising and
pedantic if not silly. Of course we preach the Word. Does any Two Kingdom
adherent deny that? We call all men to repent. That's a far cry from arguing
for the Sacralisation of culture and the state, let alone taking covenant law
and 'integrating' it with the temporal non-holy order. There is no Biblical
precedent for his view in either the Old or New Testaments and he assumes
categories completely outside anything found in the Apostolic writings. Instead
what he suggests is that natural fallen man can be compelled to 'keep' God's
commandments and work together with the Spirit to build the Kingdom of God on
Earth in the form of institutions and culture.
Calvin's comments on the state are wrong. He misinterprets
Romans 13 let alone Christ's words concerning Caesar in Matthew 22. The state
is not holy or redemptive. It is temporary and yet serves a 'ministerial'
purpose. That's true with Assyria, Persia and in the New Testament context, the
Roman Empire under Nero. The Reformed tradition got this desperately wrong and
sadly their view has become the Evangelical standard.
The professor comes across as a moderate, because he's not an
avowed Theonomist or some kind of Theocrat. He's upset that churches are using
Glenn Beck for Sunday School. That's great, it is a repulsive display of
heresy, but that doesn't mean that his view is much better. If on the error
scale the arch-heretic RJ Rushdoony was a 10, then being a 7 or 8 doesn't mean
you're in a good place or much closer to Scriptural doctrine.