Covenant Lord and Cultic Boundary: A Dialectic Inquiry Concerning Meredith Kline and the Reformed Two-Kingdom Project

By Michael Beck and Charles Lee Irons

The Reformed Two-Kingdom project has generated a great deal of literature. However, this literature is often characterized by inflamed rhetoric. Further, though it is standard fare to assume that Kline was the architect of the project, in reality, there has been very little scholarly examination of this point. In response, Kline's system is analyzed through the means of a dialectical discourse with three differing models within the Reformed tradition--the Theonomist, Perspectivalist, and Dooyeweerdian schools. Through this means, the study keeps away from surface-level polemics and instead directs readers to the critically important substructural level of current discussions. While clarifying some of the key differences between Kline and his interlocutors, often-overlooked points of nuance are also highlighted. These points are shown to be important in that they present the potential to lessen frustration and impasse in the ongoing dialogue.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Release date: Feb 2, 2023
• ISBN: 9781666797169

Book preview

1

Introduction

The Need for This Study

As society drifts towards secularity and pluralism, it becomes increasingly needful to strive for clarity regarding the church’s ministry, mandate and cultural task.

¹

Pastors and theologians certainly need to explain Scripture cohesively. However, it is also increasingly necessary for them to explain how this cohesion informs a biblical expectation concerning (1) the mission of the local church, and (2) the cultural obligations of the Christian.

In consideration of these issues, two positions, in particular, have established themselves as the dominant views within Reformed thought. The first is often referred to as the Reformed Two-Kingdom doctrine.

²

This position is advanced by a group of influential theologians, mainly from Westminster Seminary Escondido.

³

They argue that, while Christ rules over all, he does so through the means of two distinct kingdoms that are regulated by two different covenants.

⁴

While seeking to show continuity with prominent past thinkers, this specific form of the Two-Kingdom doctrine is distinct in its tie to an individual stream of covenant theology within the Reformed tradition.

The second position is typically referred to as the Neo-Calvinist doctrine. Even so, the term Neo-Calvinism has been used in different ways and is therefore liable to confusion. The prefix neo refers to a new or modern form or development

⁵

and for this reason has been attached to a fairly recent resurgence in Calvinistic thinking.

⁶

However, historically the term has been used to describe a strand of Calvinistic thought arising out of the Dutch Reformed tradition that is distinctive for its rejection of all attempts to distinguish between sacred and secular.

⁷

While much of this tradition has been shaped by Kuyper, Neo-Calvinist theologians also criticize Kuyper for allowing too much ambiguity regarding the above matters.

⁸

For this reason, Neo-Calvinism in its current form is more properly associated to the work of Herman Dooyeweerd.

⁹

Later popularizers of Dooyeweerdian thought, such as Albert Wolters, Cornelius Plantinga, James K. A. Smith, Craig Bartholomew, and Michael Goheen, have all held to a certain strand of Covenant theology and a particular understanding of redemptive history. A distinctive feature of this thought is its emphasis upon the cultural mandate (Gen 1:28) as viewed in continuity with the commission of Matt 28:18–20.

¹⁰

In this regard, proponents of the Two Kingdom project

¹¹

offer ongoing intramural critique

¹²

of the Neo-Calvinistic understanding of redemptive history and its associated forms of transformationalism.

¹³

It can certainly be said that one’s choice of a Reformed Two-Kingdom or a Neo-Calvinist view has implications for a whole host of theological issues, including issues of Christology, anthropology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and missiology.

¹⁴

Therefore, it is not surprising that a choice between these views represents a point of deep contention within the Reformed community. Further, heated and uninformed argumentation often characterize the discussion.

¹⁵

Even so, the study that follows seeks to avoid this problem. Rather than being drawn in to contentious polemics, the goal is to join the ongoing conversation in such a way that will promote fruitful theological dialogue and offer true assistance to theologians and church leaders who seek to better grasp the substructural issues at play.

The Context for This Study

If European philosophical tradition is nothing other than a series of footnotes to Plato,

¹⁶

something similar can be said concerning Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture, as it relates to the study at hand. Refinements have come, but they are primarily oriented upon the categories that Niebuhr had already set in place. Therefore, the following consideration of these categories offers something of a reference point for the chapters that follow.

According to Niebuhr, on the one side of the spectrum is what may be termed the Christ of culture view.

¹⁷

This perspective maintains that the world in its temporal and cultural form does not need to change fundamentally or substantially. The church’s task is therefore simply to (a) assess the true meaning of things as they are and (b) interpret the faith in light of these findings. The appeal of this paradigm is that it allows for the presentation of a non-offensive Christianity. However, as Niebuhr himself observes, for those who hold the Scripture in high regard, the problems with this view are insurmountable.

¹⁸

On the opposite side of the spectrum is the Christ against culture view. Simply, this view holds that Christians should not love the world—it is a kingdom of darkness that is passing away. The principle promoted here is that of strict reduplication. What is said with one’s words should be strictly reduplicated in one’s life. If believers have said that they do not love the world, they must also show this by their intentional withdrawal from the world.

¹⁹

The next three paradigms are found at the center.

²⁰

That is to say, unlike the previous two categories which constitute the two opposite edges of the spectrum, the three following categories form that which amounts to varying gradations of a closely related center point. These are briefly summarized in what follows.

First is the Christ above culture view.

²¹

As a synthesist perspective, it is more concerned with the culture of Christians than with the Christianization of culture.

²²

Next is what Niebuhr refers to as the dualist paradigm, or, the Christ and culture in paradox view.

²³

For this view, while cultural work can at best be spoken of as ameliorative, it remains understood as something that assists what is inevitably dying. In this, the dualist emphatically joins with the Christ against culture view.

²⁴

At the same time, this position also understands that one cannot be ultimately free from this world, and so joins the synthesist at the center.

²⁵

However, rather than attempt a synthesis, as the Christ above culture view does, matters relating to Christ and matters relating to culture are held in a temporal paradox.

The last center paradigm—what Niebuhr terms the conversionist, or transformationalist view—is not content with such a paradox.

²⁶

In this perspective, salvation must be understood as something extending beyond the individual to the whole of culture. Therefore, the present creation has nearly as much focus as the future creation.

²⁷

Niebuhr sees Calvin and the Reformed tradition falling within this basic category.

²⁸

While agreeing that the above is the dominant culture-paradigm

²⁹

for current Reformed thought, VanDrunen

³⁰

has sought to challenge this view and instead argue for the viability of a specific form of the Two-Kingdom perspective. To further this project,

³¹

VanDrunen has written various scholarly counterparts

³²

to his popular work.

³³

While founding his doctrine on recent articulations of covenant theology,

³⁴

he has also examined a complete history of the Two-Kingdom paradigm and highlighted the continuity of his conclusions with the larger Reformed tradition.

³⁵

In light of the above, the difference between a Two-Kingdom Paradigm and the Reformed Two-Kingdom project should be noted. Unlike the more specific proposals of the Reformed Two-Kingdom project, there is a broader trajectory of thought that has sought to keep in tension various points of antithesis and commonality concerning the church’s relationship to the world.

³⁶

Elements of this broader cognitive framework and developing paradigm can be identified as early as the Didache, the Epistle to Diognetus, and Galatius’s Epistle to Anastasius.

³⁷

Later, in the Reformed tradition, this broader concept was further developed through various attempts to outline matters of church, state, and spheres of temporal authority.

³⁸

It allowed for vastly differing avenues of application, ranging from state-coercion through to complete church and state separation.

³⁹

On the other hand, the Reformed Two-Kingdom project is much more specific, and is based on developments within Reformed thought concerning covenant theology. In this vein, an important figure is Old Testament scholar Meredith Kline. Kline advanced much of Vos’s biblical theology by publishing his seminal work, Kingdom Prologue.

⁴⁰

However, this advance moved in a different direction from Murray’s.

⁴¹

These diverging articulations of covenant theology,

⁴²

along with their equally diverging paradigms for cultural engagement,

⁴³

have led to significant tensions

⁴⁴

between the two Westminster seminaries.

⁴⁵

Amid conflict with theologians such as Greg Bahnsen,

⁴⁶

Norman Shepherd

⁴⁷

and John Frame,

⁴⁸

Kline brought his covenant theology to bear

⁴⁹

on matters of cult and culture.

⁵⁰

In so doing, he became a shaping influence for the emerging Reformed Two-Kingdom project. His lecturing at the then newly established Westminster Seminary in Escondido, together with his later written works, gave rise to an influential group of thinkers

⁵¹

who have since presented key historical,

⁵²

systematic,

⁵³

exegetical

⁵⁴

and pastoral

⁵⁵

arguments for Reformed Two-Kingdom theology.

Critiques of the above works have not only exposed the sub-structural divide between the Reformed Two-Kingdom and Neo-Calvinist schools of thought, but they have also shown the centrality of Kline’s particular form of covenant theology to the discussion.

⁵⁶

Even so, as Miller

⁵⁷

and Crouse

⁵⁸

both note, beyond the work of VanDrunen himself,

⁵⁹

strangely little has been done in further consideration of Kline’s theology as the architectonic basis of the Reformed Two-Kingdom project.

The Question and Method of This Study

With the above context in place, the relevance of the main research question can be seen. In what ways does Meredith Kline’s covenant theology supply a valid architectonic substructure for the Reformed Two-Kingdom project?

To answer this question, I have chosen a modified form of the Dialectic Inquiry Methodology.

⁶⁰

There are three primary reasons for this. First, this methodology allows for a comparison of the significant theological perspectives in view. Second, it facilitates legitimate exploration concerning the validity of these differing perspectives. Third, it allows for the possibility (but not necessity) of synthesis as a means to move forward in the ongoing discussion.

The above method means that several subsidiary questions must first be addressed before a robust answer to the main research question can be provided. With this in mind, the following will outline the steps to be taken to move this study to its intended end.

The first step consists of a literary review. Correspondingly, the first subsidiary question is, How does recent scholarship provide context to Meredith Kline’s covenant theology and its relationship to the Reformed Two-Kingdom project? To answer this question, I move from a wide to a narrow focus while engaging in the broader discussion regarding (1) the Two-Kingdom paradigm and (2) the development of covenant theology.

The second step involves a description of the thesis. In that regard, the second subsidiary question is, What is a working description of Meredith Kline’s covenant theology, especially as it relates to the Two-Kingdom paradigm? In response, Kline’s covenant theology itself is here presented. Further, I interact with those theologians who have engaged positively with his thought and who have helped to show its significance for the Reformed Two-Kingdom project. With the above in place, the third step moves into a dialectical analysis of the thesis. Therefore, the third subsidiary question is, In what ways does Meredith Kline’s covenant theology, as architectonic of a Two-Kingdom paradigm, compare with other covenantal paradigms in the Reformed tradition? At this point, Kline’s theology and its associated Reformed Two-Kingdom worldview are put into dialectical discourse with the Reformed tradition. His contribution to covenant theology is further considered in response to alternative strands within Reformed theology, along with their corresponding culture-engagement paradigms. This analysis is presented with a particular view to seeing the bearing of his critique on a Reformed understanding of the church’s ministry, mandate, and cultural task.

In parallel with the above, the fourth step in the study presents a dialectical analysis of the antithesis. The fourth subsidiary question is, In what ways have other theologians responded to Meredith Kline’s covenant theology, specifically as it stands in relation to the Two-Kingdom paradigm? To answer this question, I consider the perspectives of prominent thinkers who have responded to Kline. Specific emphasis is given to those within the Reformed tradition who have sought to critique his covenant theology (at many points along with, or via, its associated Two-Kingdom paradigm). At this stage, then, transformationalist theologians are put into a discussion with Kline and thereby brought to identify both the strengths and weaknesses of his theology in comparison with their perspectives. The fifth step moves to the Scripture. The subsidiary question here is as follows, What might a biblical-theological examination of the key motif reveal about Meredith Kline’s covenant theology? To answer this, the biblical motif which proves most important to an ultimate evaluation of Kline’s views is considered in relation to its greater thematic coherence within the biblical canon.

With the above in place, the last step involves an evaluation of the objective. Here, the main research question can finally be brought into view. Once again, the question is as follows, In what ways might Meredith Kline’s covenant theology supply a valid architectonic substructure for the Reformed Two-Kingdom project? In this step, the main elements of critique presented in step four are weighed against the findings of the biblical-theological examination. Meredith Kline’s covenant theology is thereby finally evaluated in regard to its ability to supply a valid architectonic substructure for the Reformed Two-Kingdom project.

The Delimitations, Presuppositions and Hypothesis of This Study

An inquiry of this nature requires some delimiters. The first matter concerns the body of Kline’s academic work. As Kline engaged with many topics during his career, I do not propose to offer a comprehensive examination of his overall contribution. Instead, his thought will be considered only regarding its relevance to his covenantal system and the Two-Kingdom paradigm.

Second, this research will offer a component of my own scriptural evaluation. However, I must also delimit the nature of this evaluation. Rather than providing an exclusively exegetical study, my analysis will take place within the framework of a dialectic inquiry and will be primarily concerned with a comparative analysis.

Third, while some presentation of history is necessary to situate the topic, it should be stated that the study will be purposeful in limiting the research to that of Kline’s covenant theology and its current interaction with the Reformed Two-Kingdom project. For this reason, areas that are best suited to a dedicated historical study will not receive complete coverage.

Before beginning, a note about the presuppositions that I bring to this study is also in order. Beyond the basic tenets of historical Christian orthodoxy, I presuppose broad agreement with the major confessions of the Reformed tradition. In this regard, I make assumptions concerning the inspiration, coherence and unity of the protestant canon and its analogy of the faith. A presupposition that flows from these assumptions concerns the legitimacy of covenant theology itself, along with its biblical-theological support as articulated within the Vosian tradition. Additionally, while this study considers matters of debate within covenant theology, the discussion itself is viewed in an intramural fashion. In other words, I do not venture into a theological or exegetical inquiry concerning the validity of the covenant hermeneutic or Vosian biblical-theological method itself.

Further to the above, while debates concerning Reformed identity are ongoing, for this study, it is assumed that the Reformed tradition includes those streams having arisen from the European and English symbols of faith. These include the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Westminster, Savoy and Second London Baptist

⁶¹

Confessions. On the same basis, iterations of Calvinistic theology that fall outside the scope of the above confessions, such as Anabaptist and Neo-Orthodox formulations, will not be given any direct attention in this book.

Finally, and before officially embarking on the process of the dialectic inquiry itself, my initial hypothesis may be stated as follows, It seems that Meredith Kline’s covenant theology does indeed supply a valid architectonic substructure for the Reformed Two-Kingdom project. However, it also appears that there are some elements of specificity within this project that, while certainly standing in continuity with Kline’s thought, are not necessarily demanded by Kline’s covenant theology itself. This hypothesis will be returned to and evaluated in the final chapter.

1

. During the time of writing, the emergence of several factors has only intensified this point. These range from the global pandemic and its resulting restrictions on corporate worship, through to mass rioting and the resulting pressure that this has placed upon the mission and focus of the local church.

2

. Sometimes referred to by detractors as Escondido Theology. Cf. Frame, Escondido Theology.

3

. Frame, Escondido Theology,

10

–

12

; Bristley et al., Kingdom of Jesus, loc.

417

.

4

. VanDrunen, Living in Two Kingdoms,

29

.

5

. Brookes et al., English Dictionary.

6

. Cf. Biema, "

10

Ideas"; Hansen, Restless and Reformed.

7

. VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms,

15

; Balserak, Calvinism,

146

.

8

. Douma, Common Grace, loc.

3195

.

9

. Just as the broader trajectory of Two Kingdom thought can be distinguished from its more specific instantiation in the current Reformed Two-Kingdom project, it is also possible to distinguish between the broader Kuyperian tradition and the more specific and current Neo-Calvinist project. Cf. VanDrunen, Natural Law,

368

. However, as these distinctions can be more meaningfully drawn out in later chapters, they will not be duplicated here.

10

. Smith, Reformed (Transformationalist) View,

145

.

11

. While the term project has been chosen to speak of the above school of thought, this moniker should not be thought to imply an active agenda of any sort. Quite the opposite, it is being used to refer to the theological protest of this group toward the more activist goals of Neo-Calvinistic transformationalism.

12

. Balserak, Calvinism,

33

–

43

; cf. VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms,

24

–

25

.

13

. Cf. Miller, Kingdom.

14

. Wind, Keys,

33

.

15

. Karlberg, Changing of the Guard; Frame, Escondido Theology. Cf. Horton, Response to Frame.

16

. Whitehead, Process & Reality,

39

.

17

. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture,

87

.

18

. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture,

87

.

19

. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture,

48

.

20

. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture,

78

.

21

. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture,

116

.

22

. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture,

128

.

23

. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture,

149

.

24

. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture,

149

.

25

. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture,

149

.

26

. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture,

78

,

190

.

27

. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture,

194

–

95

.

28

. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture,

208

–

9

,

217

.

29

. In popular discussion, Neo-Calvinism and Transformationalism are often used synonymously. However, transformationalism is better viewed as a wider category. In other words, while it can indeed be said that Neo-Calvinism leads to a transformationalist position, it can also be said that one need not be a Neo-Calvinist in order to arrive at this particular view of cultural engagement.

30

. VanDrunen, Two Kingdoms: Transformationist Calvin.

31

. It should be noted that I may sometimes use the term doctrine or theology, rather than project when talking about the Reformed Two-Kingdom position. These are all used synonymously, and for stylistic reasons only.

32

. VanDrunen, Natural Law; VanDrunen, Divine Covenants and Moral Order; VanDrunen, Politics.

33

. VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms.

34

. VanDrunen, Divine Covenants and Moral Order.

35

. VanDrunen, Natural Law.

36

. Jooste, Recovering Calvin,

259

; VanDrunen, Natural Law,

24

.

37

. VanDrunen, Natural Law.

38

. Jooste, Recovering Calvin; Littlejohn, Two Kingdoms; Tuininga, Calvin’s Political Theology.

39

. VanDrunen, Natural Law.

40

. Kline, Kingdom Prologue,

7

; cf. Sandifer, Mosaic Covenant; Vos, Biblical Theology.

41

. Jeon, Covenant Theology; Murray, Covenant of Grace,

31

.

42. Jeon, Covenant Theology and Justification.

43

. Cf. Wind, Keys.

44

. Karlberg, Changing of the Guard; Karlberg, Republication.

45

. Philadelphia and Escondido.

46

. Kline, Comments on Old-New Error.

47

. Kline, Covenant Theology.

48

. Kline, Kline on Multiperspectivalism.

49

. Kline, Comments on Old-New Error.

50

. In the context of this study, a standard meaning of the term culture is assumed. As defined by VanDrunen, it refers to that vast range of activities that constitute human life, including but not limited to our commercial, scientific, artistic, academic, familial, and recreational endeavors. VanDrunen, Natural Law,

3

.

51

. Cf. Keller, Center Church,

188

.

52

. Hart, Secular Faith.

53

. VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms; Horton, Christian Faith; Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit.

54

. Estelle et al., Not of Faith; VanDrunen, Divine Covenants.

55

. Horton, Covenant and Eschatology; Stellman, Dual Citizens; VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms.

56

. Wind, Keys; cf. Dennison et al., Merit or ‘Entitlement’; Bergquist et al., Merit and Moses. Authors such as Venema, McIlhenny, Kloosterman and Mattson have all been vocal in their critique of VanDrunen. The undergirding covenantal substructure of his project has also been targeted. For example, Dennison, Sanborn and Swinburnson in Merit or ‘Entitlement’, and Bergquist, Elam and Van Kooten in Merit and Moses have all offered rebuttals of Kline’s republication hermeneutic (a concept that is further explained in chapter

3

). The most vocal and sustained of these critiques, however, have come from John Frame. Frame has responded to the Reformed Two-Kingdom project over the course of his career. Cf. Theology of My Life, loc.

3175

,

3523

. In so doing, he offers much attention to Kline’s Kingdom Prologue, which he identifies as both the theological source of the project as well as its most impressive work. Frame, Escondido Theology,

151

. Indeed, Frame admits that Kline’s work on Ancient Near Eastern covenants has had a foundational influence on his own thinking about the lordship concept. Frame, Doctrine of God,

31

; Frame, Doctrine of the Christian Life,

520

;

2011

,

154

; Frame, Theology of My Life, loc.

2269

. Further, Barber explains that Frame’s emphasis on lordship bears a central thematic importance throughout his system of thought, extending even to the formation of his unique theological method and the construction of his opposing one-kingdom worldview. Barber, One Kingdom,

7

,

175

. As both a student of Kline at Westminster (Philadelphia) and a later colleague with him at Westminster (Escondido), Frame is well situated to offer the critique that he has. Even so, while Frame had hoped to stimulate further dialogue through this analysis, his study has only further compounded the absence of research concerning Kline’s relationship to the Reformed Two-Kingdom project. Frame, Escondido Theology,

18

.

57

. Miller, De-Klining from Chalcedon,

173

.

58

. Crouse, Two Kingdoms,

218

.

59

. VanDrunen, Natural Law,

387

–

434

.

60

. Cf. Berniker and McNabb, Dialectical Inquiry.

61

. While I presuppose the validity of a Reformed Baptist position, in light of the preceding it should also be stated that the goal of this research is not to develop a theology that stands in particular continuity with historical Baptist thought. While Baptist theologians will not be excluded in reference to their areas of contribution, neither will any specific attention be given to defending the views of Baptists concerning covenantal matters such as the sacraments, family and covenant children.

2

Literature Review

Introduction

This chapter builds on the previous one by moving beyond an initial survey. In this way, the first subsidiary research question is addressed. How does recent scholarship provide context to Meredith Kline’s covenant theology and its relationship to the Reformed Two-Kingdom Project?

In order to answer this query, focus is given to the following three areas. First, there is an explication of the Two-Kingdom paradigm

⁶²

as it falls within the broader Reformed tradition. Here, thinkers such as Luther, Calvin and Kuyper are considered. Second, the focus shifts to the development of covenant theology. While areas of diversity and debate are explored, an eye is always kept on the matter of the relationship between covenant theology and cultural engagement. Third, the literature from proponents of the two main competing models is reviewed.

One more introductory remark is necessary. My engagement with the existing literature proceeds in a broadly chronological manner and attempts to offer an account of the narrowing development of historical thought concerning the topic under consideration. In this regard, the individual works are engaged with at a level suitable to the formation of this broader contextual narrative. In other words, my intent is not simply to provide a summary of each piece of relevant literature, but rather to highlight those elements of thought that establish the broader universe of discourse in which this study exists.

The Two-Kingdom Paradigm in Reformed Tradition

Luther’s Two-Kingdom Doctrine

In some ways, Luther is not the best place to start. This is because he was a Christendom thinker.

⁶³

He was not prepared to accept the liberty of conscience of those who disagreed with him on substantial religious matters.

⁶⁴

Further, he showed no scruple in directing rulers to the particulars of their civil tasks.

⁶⁵

Yet, in other ways, Luther is the best place to start. This is because his doctrine of two governments

⁶⁶

was more than a treatise on church and state.

⁶⁷

As a major motif in Luther’s theology,

⁶⁸

it presents a complex contribution of thought that is of undeniable importance to the development of the greater Two-Kingdom paradigm.

⁶⁹

Luther’s Two-Kingdom doctrine is best thought of as two dimensions of rule which extend over the inner and outer realms.

⁷⁰

The outward dimension is in the realm of the adiaphora

⁷¹

and pertains not only to civil matters, but to all external matters regardless of their particular estate.

⁷²

The inward dimension is concerned with the soul. Here, God neither can, nor will allow anyone but himself to rule.

⁷³

An important correspondence exists between Luther’s doctrine of two kingdoms and his even more central doctrine of law and gospel. This is because, for Luther, law and gospel are simply two kinds of righteousness within two realms.

⁷⁴

On the one hand, there is a vertical righteousness. This pertains to a believer’s standing before God (Coram Deo). Hence, for the inward kingdom, the field of soteriology is primarily in view. On the other hand, there is also a horizontal righteousness. This pertains to the believer’s life toward others (Coram Mundo). Correspondingly, this external kingdom pertains more directly to the field of ethics and the role of the law.

⁷⁵

While Luther’s doctrine of two kingdoms should not be reduced to church and state, it is also the case that this was an area in which the application of his theology was important. As a Christendom thinker, it was revolutionary that Luther could approach the matter of church and state the way that he did. Regarding the issue of war, for example, he could allow Christians to fight for their country if under attack. This was the proper duty of every citizen in the outward kingdom.

⁷⁶

It was a simple matter of love for neighbor.

⁷⁷

On the other hand, he could argue that the inward spiritual kingdom was to employ spiritual activity only.

⁷⁸

So, while Christians should be willing to obey their earthly kings over the call to bear arms, they should also reject the idea that they were fighting for the advance of Christianity per se.

⁷⁹

Naturally, for this very reason, Luther saw the Crusades as the very height of kingdom confusion.

⁸⁰

Applying the Two-Kingdom doctrine to war necessitated its application to matters of church and state. Because the inner kingdom was spiritual, it not only differed from the institutional magistrate but also from the institutional church. For Luther, the spiritual kingdom did not find institutional representation in the external polity of the church.

⁸¹

This meant that a fair degree of consistency could be retained in allowing for the kind of state involvement that was typical during a time of Christendom.

⁸²

In this vein, it is important to note that there were some essential differences between Luther’s doctrine and the later Reformed developments concerning the way that the visible institutional church was to be conceived.

Calvin and the Calvinists

A Reformed Neo-Calvinist view of cultural engagement was well captured by Niebuhr’s portrayal of Calvin.

⁸³

The Genevan Reformer as transformationalist remains the caricature, with many in the Reformed tradition only too happy to embrace this label.

⁸⁴

VanDrunen even goes so far as to admit that Niebuhr’s fifth paradigm (transformationalism) has conquered in the theology-of-culture wars.

⁸⁵

However, it is important to note that Niebuhr never actually cited Calvin in order to prove the legitimacy of this categorization.

⁸⁶

This point, on its own, gives grounds for further inquiry.

Calvin does write at length on the subject in the Institutes of the Christian Religion. In a similar manner to Luther, he is unmistakably clear in his view of the twofold reign of Christ. For example, he says, let us observe that in man government is twofold, the one spiritual, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil.

⁸⁷

As he related the subject to Christian liberty, Calvin was in complete alignment with Luther. There is also clear overlap in terms of Calvin’s understanding of the relationship between the church and civil government.

⁸⁸

In this regard, both theologians forthrightly asserted that the civil kingdom must be distinguished from the spiritual kingdom of Christ.

⁸⁹

The above helps to explain why Horton,

⁹⁰

Jeon,

⁹¹

VanDrunen,

⁹²

Jooste

⁹³

and Tuininga

⁹⁴

have all challenged Niebuhr’s portrayal of Calvin.

⁹⁵

They argue that to interpret Calvin on his own terms shows a different picture; his concept of political engagement was, in fact, an expression of the Two-Kingdom paradigm.

⁹⁶

To be sure, modifications of this paradigm do indeed occur in Calvin and later Calvinistic thought. However, these changes are not sufficient to justify Niebuhr’s categorization.

⁹⁷

The similarity of Calvin’s thinking to that of Luther is often highlighted at points of their common struggle against the radical Anabaptists and, on the other side, the battle against Rome.

⁹⁸

To be consistent in a protestant doctrine of justification, freedom of conscience needed to be protected. It was this attention that ultimately served as a midwife of the separation of church and state.

⁹⁹

In this vein, Horton

¹⁰⁰

shows that it was those in the tradition of Calvin, perhaps even more than that of Luther, who eventually argued with most force for the religious liberty of the citizen. This is especially true when considering the later dissenting tradition.

¹⁰¹

There were, however, some important differences between Luther and Calvin. One such difference pertained to the use of the law as a means of the believer’s sanctification.

¹⁰²

Where Luther described God as ruling over his spiritual kingdom by gospel only, Calvin was happy to apply both law and gospel in the spiritual realm.

¹⁰³

In other words, Calvin’s appropriation of the law and gospel within the two kingdoms was asymmetrical; only law was to administer the civil kingdom,

¹⁰⁴

but both law and gospel could administer the spiritual kingdom. Indeed, this point offers some bearing on why Calvin viewed church government as part of the redemptive kingdom where Luther associated these aspects with the earthly kingdom only.

¹⁰⁵

Regardless, the institutional expression of the kingdom in the government of the church was one of the main changes that took place in the ongoing Two-Kingdom trajectory as it moved from Luther to Calvin.

¹⁰⁶

While there are certain difficulties in Luther’s application of the Two-Kingdom paradigm, this is even more the case for Calvin.

¹⁰⁷

Luther’s relegation of the magistrate’s duty and the church’s polity to the outer kingdom meant that he could apply his doctrine with a fair degree of uniformity despite the inevitable church-state involvement of the time. On the other hand, Calvin’s view of the visible church as an institutional representation of the spiritual kingdom created ideals that could not be detached from a Christendom context.

¹⁰⁸

In regard to the above, Tuininga and VanDrunen admit that Calvin’s application of the Two-Kingdom paradigm was inconsistent with its theory. However, to keep the value of Calvin’s thought from being clouded by the complex historical setting of the time, Tuininga attempts to distinguish Calvin’s political theology from his contextual politics.

¹⁰⁹

Similarly, by dividing Calvin’s theological ideals from his inconsistent praxis, VanDrunen hopes to reinforce the matter of basic alignment concerning the Two-Kingdom paradigm.

¹¹⁰

Littlejohn, however, has questioned the above approach. He argues that Calvin was being more intentional than either VanDrunen or Tuininga have allowed.

¹¹¹

What Calvin struggled with in terms of application of the two kingdoms, he made up for in his further theological nuancing of the paradigm. In particular, Bolt

¹¹²

points to Calvin’s view of Christ’s reign extra ecclesiam (outside the church). This was important because it meant that Calvin was able to differentiate between the two kingdoms while at the same time avoiding too rigid a division. In other words, while Christ rules over two kingdoms, it is the same Christ who rules over all of life—both in creation and in the church. For this reason, in Bolt’s judgement, Calvin gives us the best theoretical model by which to understand the relationship between Church and the world.

¹¹³

For similar reasons, Tuininga argues that even though the contemporary political climate is vastly different to that of Reformation Christendom, Calvin’s political theology should not be ignored as a source of guidance in today’s pluralistic and liberal democracies.

¹¹⁴

In this regard, Jooste

¹¹⁵

has also made an impressive contribution. He has sought to recover Calvin’s Two-Kingdom doctrine for the purposes of assisting the church as it engages with the difficulties arising from its adjustments to the new democratic orientation in South Africa.

¹¹⁶

Largely in agreement with the findings of both VanDrunen and Tuininga, Jooste resists those portraits of Calvin that were appropriated during both the apartheid and anti-apartheid struggles.

¹¹⁷

Within the rubric of a Two-Kingdom paradigm, some place must also be given to natural law.

¹¹⁸

Heckel

¹¹⁹

explains that Luther’s understanding broke away from the medieval idea. Luther taught that, before the fall, law was understood as an expression of God’s love and was obeyed without coercion. After the fall, however, though the law remains written on the heart of fallen man, it is a secular law. That is to say, it is interpreted in an external and superficial manner. Though Christians are released from this secular law, they continue to follow it for the sake of Christian brother and neighbor.

¹²⁰

VanDrunen argues

¹²¹

that while Calvin made many modifications to Aquinas’s stance on natural law, he continued in the basic trajectory of his thought. This alignment and trajectory is further evidenced in post-Reformation scholastics such as Rutherford

¹²²

and Turretin.

¹²³

Grabill

¹²⁴

confirms this idea, showing that while Calvin and other key thinkers of the Reformed tradition taught that nature was fallen, they also believed that human faculties were sufficient to reveal the commands of a moral law.

¹²⁵

In similar fashion to Luther, then, the Reformed tradition has largely held that, despite mankind’s inability to apprehend natural law perfectly, it remains an important and useful reality to be aware of when considering the role of civil government.

¹²⁶

Contrary to those who set Calvin against the Calvinists,

¹²⁷

VanDrunen agrees

¹²⁸

with Helm,

¹²⁹

Muller

¹³⁰

and van Asselt

¹³¹

that the Reformed movement toward scholastic theology had more to do with method than substance.

¹³²

It is noteworthy also that, like Calvin, Turretin held to a distinctive Two-Kingdom view. He saw Christ’s dual roles of mediator and redeemer as corresponding to the respective realms of creation and redemption.

¹³³

The same is true of Samuel Rutherford, who articulated this view of Christ’s two roles in view of his outline of the authority of the civil magistrate.

¹³⁴

For reasons such as these, Heppe’s summary

¹³⁵

is striking, the belief that Christ’s kingship extends beyond the church (to all nature) in the same manner as it stands over the church itself is simply not in line with Reformed orthodoxy.

¹³⁶

The Puritan Dissenters and Baptists

Dissenters and Baptists often adhered to sister confessions arising from the Westminster Assembly and shared a Two-Kingdom and natural law heritage.

¹³⁷

In fact, these groups were often far more consistent than the above in their application of the paradigm. As the seventeenth century saw dissenting churches forced into disestablishment, it meant that many believers were required to live out a Two-Kingdom position—whether they liked it or not. Growing out of the theological musings within this culture, the Two-Kingdom paradigm finds a relatively pure expression in the early years of dissent (Helm, Further Remarks). Christ’s eternal kingdom (expressed in the local congregation) was to these churches obviously different from Christ’s temporal kingdom (finding expression in the monarchies of England). Yet, as Helm laments,

¹³⁸

VanDrunen offers a sparse consideration of this wider Reformed tradition and thus Helm urges that further study be given to neglected thinkers.

¹³⁹

A good example of the kind of theologian not examined by VanDrunen is John Gill,

¹⁴⁰

who though a Baptist, has his place in Richard Muller’s galaxy of Reformed Orthodox and would have much to contribute to current discussions.

¹⁴¹

Another excellent eighteenth century example can be found in the theology of dissenting Baptist minister, Abraham Booth.

¹⁴²

George

¹⁴³

and Helm

¹⁴⁴

both warn against anachronism. Not only was the