I will be starting a book study on the following book: Learning to Love the Psalms by Dr. Robert Godfrey lord willing soon at the local church where I am a member. I will post the chapter overviews here on this blog for those attending and for anyone interested in reading the book and following the material posted here.
Dr. Godfrey provides this helpful summary of the primary theme discussed in his book:
The Psalms draw us into the history of the church as we see the people of God advancing and declining in understanding and holiness as they move toward the consummation of all things in the second coming of Christ: first the suffering and then the glory. Finally, the Psalms always remind us that our God is our Christ in righteousness and grace and that our earthly King, sacrifice, and Saviour is also our Christ. As we have seen, Christ is everywhere in the Psalter. Those who do not see Him there do not understand either the Psalter or the Scriptures as a whole”.
The book can be purchased in both hardcover and kindle format (please note that the paperback version is only the study guide version and is not the complete book):
This book is a very profitable overview of the Psalms. It is not a comprehensive commentary, but does address several Psalms from the major 5 divisions of the book of Psalms to show a Christ-centered method of interpretation for the Book of Psalms. It also includes useful discussion questions after each chapter making it easy to use for book studies and family worship.
I appreciate Dr. Godfrey’s book for three important contributions he makes:
Retrieving a Christ-centered approach to reading and studying the Psalms
Dr. Godfrey shows the importance of using church history to interpret the Psalms and our pilgrim theology as believers as we sojourn in this world and look forward to the return of Christ and have our eschatological hope in our Lord Jesus Christ
Retrieving the historical use of the Psalter in corporate worship
Here are some brief YouTube videos from the author, Dr. Robert Godfrey discussing some of the theology of the Psalms. This first video briefly discusses poetry and a Christ-centered approach for preaching from the Psalms. This also applies to all believers to read the Psalms with a Christ-centered method of interpretation:
This second video is a brief introduction to the Psalms and some of the themes discussed in Dr. Godfrey’s book from a message he gave at a Ligonier Conference:
On a brief side note, here are some books that I have used for family worship and study for the Psalms that you may find profitable for further study and use in worship, both corporate and family worship:
1650 Scottish Psalter (A useful Psalter that is simple to use with audio online to follow along even if you can’t read music):
There are various physical editions of the Scottish Psalter online. The OPC Psalter and Split leaf editions are the most common among churches using the Psalms in corporate worship:
This website gives the Psalms with acapella recordings for the 1650 Scottish Psalter and a brief commentary that points believers to Christ in the Psalms:
For a useful concise Christ-centered commentary on the Psalms for family worship the recent Family Worship Bible Guide by Reformation Heritage has many useful brief comments on the Bible that point believers to Christ along with some discussion questions:
Many older commentaries on the Psalms are free public domain for their online digital versions (reprints are also available, but some are hard to find). For older patristic (early church) commentaries, Augustine is a very helpful Christ-centered commentary:
For a useful commentary that provides various early church commentaries in a single volume I highly recommend the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Series. You may not agree with every detail, but it provides many early church fathers exposition of a passage from their various theological works in a single volume. These volumes are more expensive, but if you want to consult many of the early church fathers and learn from their method of interpretation it is well worth the investment:
These are several good commentaries I would recommend (not an exhaustive list) from reformed Presbyterians, reformed Congregationalists, and particular Baptists. I am providing links below for the online digital versions where available (the Henry Ainsworth commentary reprinted by Soli Deo Gloria is very difficult to find a complete physical copy):
Annotations on the Pentateuch and the Psalms, Henry Ainsworth (1612):
This is not a commentary in the usual sense as Ainsworth focuses on words and expressions and traces out their meanings as used throughout Scripture, similar to a biblical theology or redemptive historical approach. It does comment on all the Psalms but not every verse, which is why it is called annotations.
Christ and his church in the book of Psalms, Andrew Bonar (1860). This is one of the best older Christ-centered commentaries on the Psalms:
Three useful particular Baptist commentaries for studying the Psalms that offer a Christ-centered approach are commentaries by John Gill, Samuel Eyles Pierce, and Charles Spurgeon .
John Gill commentary on the Old Testament (this is a free online version):
An Exposition of the Psalms by Samuel Eyles pierce (1817). Unfortunately there is no online digital version of this commentary yet, but reprint versions are available:
The following podcast episodes from Theology in Particular (A 6 part series) gives a distinctive baptist and covenantal approach to believers baptism that distinguishes it both from Dispensationalism and Paedobaptism. The overview is helpful and not overly technical with each episode adressing a different angle of the discussion on baptism. This is an excellent series for anyone studying the doctrine of baptism and the discussions in the interviews below are respectful to differing theological views while also providing a robust covenantal framework for credobaptism:
For further resources on historic baptist covenant theology see the 1689 federalism website:
The following articles and podcasts provide some useful reformed critiques of John Piper’s views on Justification, specifically his view that believers are justified by grace but will be finally justified by works at the final judgment (also called two-stage justification).
This brief five minute video by Theocast gives a helpful summary of John Piper’s view of final justification and how it is similar to the council of Trent roman catholic view of justification:
PCA Pastor Patrick Hines gave this useful indepth analysis of John Piper’s views on Justification on the Back to the Reformation podcast:
This first overview by Harrison Perkins is a book review of John Piper’s book: Future Grace. Although I would differ on some of the comments regarding Baptists in the post (under the section Baptist Angle) it is important to distinguish John Piper and others such as John MacArthur, Steve Lawson, etc. who are Calvinistic Baptists, but are not confessional Baptists. I am grateful that Harrison Perkins does rightly acknowledge that John Piper is not a confessional Baptist and doesn’t group him with confessional Baptists who subscribe to the second London Baptist confession of faith as other Presbyterians have repeatedly done.
To clarify here for readers the following list provides some key theological differences between Calvinistic non-confessional Baptists (e.g. John MacArthur and John Piper) and confessional Baptists who subscribe to the second London Baptist confession of faith (this is not meant to be an exhaustive list): Calvinistic baptists do not teach the regulative principle of worship, they do not affirm the abiding validity of the moral law for believers (3rd use of the decalogue), they do not affirm the Lord’s day, they do not affirm covenant theology, they do not affirm the law/gospel distinction, they do not embrace an associational relationship of Baptist churches as expressed in chapter 26 paragraph 15 of the second London Baptist confession of faith, and they do not affirm the means of grace in their ecclesiology.
I agree with the concerns regarding justification and failure to make a proper law/gospel distinction despite disagreeing with my paedobaptist brethren on baptism. I know many of my reformed and confessional Presbyterian brothers would not consider Baptists reformed, and I personally prefer to call myself a confessional Baptist to distinguish myself from Calvinistic Baptists. Unfortunately some Presbyterians group confessional Baptists together with John MacArthur, John Piper, and others when there are many key theological differences and confessional Baptists have much more in common doctrinally with their confessional Presbyterian brothers. As Francis Turretin repeatedly did in his Elenctic Theology, it is crucial to make proper theological distinctions in these discussions amongst Presbyterians and Baptists to avoid speaking past each other and to properly represent each others’ views even where we disagree.
This page is intended to provide a list of theological resources regarding the federal vision such as some debates and position papers from theological committees by Presbyteries and by confessional Baptists. There are various nuances among those within the federal vision movement (for example Douglas Wilson affirms a covenant of works and the imputed righteousness of Christ, but other federal vision proponents would deny both). Due to the nuance and amount of resources available I have attempted to organize theme here for readers.
The order below starts with some resources by Douglas Wilson summarizing his theology followed by an interview with Douglas Wilson and then some critiques and responses to Douglas Wilson and the Federal Vision by both paedobaptists and baptists. The intention of this order is to attempt to give a fair representation of Wilson and Federal Vision proponents prior to offering resources critiquing their theology.
This is not a secondary issue because the Gospel itself is at steak in these disagreements so the resources provided are intended to give a thorough and thoughtful analysis of the federal vision theology. The intent is not to cause unnecessary division, but to uphold the truth and proper use of the law and Gospel. This is no new debate, similar theological debates have occurred repeatedly throughout church history (for example see John Owen’s response to Richard Baxter on Justification for very similar arguments to modern federal vision proponents, as mentioned in the resources below).
Prior to studying Federal vision theology, I recommend getting a robust overview of the historic reformed law/gospel distinction, which can be found on the following resource page:
This previous post gives some useful resources in historical theology about neonomianism that are related to modern forms of neonomianism such as the federal vision:
In recent years (2017), Douglas Wilson has distanced himself from others within the federal vision movement and prefers not to use the term to describe his position, but he still affirms the theology taught in the joint statement:
Following the tenets of the federal vision and controversy they faces within Presbyterian denominations they formed their own denomination known as CREC (Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches), which includes both presbyterian and Baptist member churches:
Confessional Paedobaptist critiques of the Federal vision:
Pastor Lane Keister (OPC minister), has done several interviews about federal vision theology. This interview was a panel discussion on the Reformed Forum Podcast in 2008. The discussion starts at about the 7:50 minute mark:
The following episode from the Back to the Reformation podcast with PCA pastor Patrick Hines gives a useful and thorough critique of the federal vision and Douglas Wilson on justification:
The interview that Pastor Hines mentions in this podcast is the one listed above on this resources page from Iron Sharpens Iron podcast with Douglas Wilson.
The OPC published a study on Justification in 2006 which addresses the federal vision:
In recent years federal vision has influenced many Baptists claiming to be reformed such as Apologia and Right Response Ministries. Many claim that you cannot be a federal vision Baptist because it is about infant baptism. This misses many of the theological issues of federal vision in the previously mentioned resources and the fact that neonomianism and a failure to distinguish law/gospel is taught by the federal vision and this can affect Baptist churches (it has in the past with Daniel Fuller and others throughout church history). The following resources address the federal vision from a confessional reformed Baptist perspective.
Ironically even Douglas Wilson admitted this years ago that Baptists could affirm the theological tenants of federal vision without infant baptism:
This brief video from Right Response Ministries (a theonomic Baptist ministry claiming to be confessional to the second London Baptist confession) gives a sympathetic perspective of the federal vision while they also say they are not federal vision.
This second video from Right Response Ministries is an interview with AD Robles (a member from a CREC church), discussing Douglas Wilson on justification. Pastor Webbon states that Wilson is orthodox on justification and he unfortunately demonstrates that he doesn’t appear to understand the key issues with federal vision theology.
The following is James White’s discussion with Douglas Wilson on federal vision. He had previously debated him on baptism, but in this interview James White fails to address any of the key theological issues of federal vision. James White frequently teaches at conferences with Doug Wilson now that he is a theonomist. The interview below primarily responds to R. Scott Clark’s critique of federal vision:
Unfortunately all of these videos by baptists fail to make any critiques of the failure to give a proper law/gospel distinction by federal vision proponents and justification by faith and works/covenant faithfulness (neonomianism). Due to the influence of neonomianism in both Norman Shepherd and Greg Bahnsen it is not surprising to see the influence of their theology affecting many theonomists. It doesn’t help to advocate theonomy (as presented in the two videos above) if one leaves behind clear law/gospel issues and refuses to view them as essential.
This dismissal of federal vision as not being a serious theological issue among Baptists is a very common among many Calvinistic non-confessional Baptists such as John MacArthur and John Piper (neither claim to be reformed Baptists, but many online discussions blur the proper theological categories and call them reformed). Those who hold to a Lordship salvation view already have a stronger emphasis on assurance and evidences rather than a historic understanding of law/gospel and covenant theology that places assurance in Christ. There does seem to be a failure amongst lordship salvation advocates to identify problems with federal vision theology on justification.
Confessional/1689 Baptist Critiques of the Federal Vision:
Brandon Adams on his blog has provided several helpful critiques of the federal vision position from a 1689 Baptist position of covenant theology. I have listed them here in chronological order, the more recent posts address whether Baptists can affirm the federal vision (note the list at the beginning of this post from the OPC, although Baptists deny infant baptism it is still possible to embrace the other tenets listed). It should be noted that not all theonomists hold to the federal vision, but Norman Shepherd’s theology and the federal vision movement have both influenced many theonomists.
Pastor Josh Sommers has made some helpful and well researched videos discussing the federal vision from various aspects such as their doctrine of God, Justification, and covenant theology (this is a playlist from his YouTube channel, The Baptist Broadcast):
Pastor Sommer provides these two brief videos responding to Douglas Wilson’s theology from his published writings on doctrine of God, justification, and covenant theology:
I plan to do a book review of Michael Heiser’s book, Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches About the Unseen World – and Why It Matters (2015) because it has been highly influential in many evangelical circles and even among some reformed groups as well. Although Dr. Heiser passed away last year, his works and videos are still very popular online and his followers can be very dogmatic at times unfortunately causing unnecessary division in churches (despite Dr. Heiser being strongly against tradition he has ironically raised up a significant tradition for his following and methods of interpretation).
These brief videos from Dr. Heiser explain his views discussed below for readers unfamiliar with his books/lectures (I don’t hold to Heiser’s views on either of these subjects, but they are provided here to give context for readers):
I previously addressed the phrase “sons of God” in Genesis 6 in a previous study of the divine covenants and showed that Nehemiah Coxe interpreted the “sons of God” in light of Genesis 3:15 and how the sons of men were from a godly line of the seed of the woman (Genesis 3:15), the sons of Seth, but they were enticed and drawn to the depraved actions of the daughters of men (seed of the serpent, descendants of Cain) of the surrounding nations. This is the citation from Nehemiah Coxe in his discussion of the Noahic covenant:
However, the nature and necessity of religious worship and the obedience that was due to God in it, obliged his servants to keep themselves distinct and separate from the rest of the world. While they did so, the general defection of mankind was prevented. But toward the completion of the old world, all things declined and grew worse and worse (Genesis 6:5, 12, 13). The violence and corruption of mankind abounded and even the sons of God were taken with the bait of sensual delights. Those who had formerly kept up a pure and distinct communion for the solemn worship of God by calling on his name (and so also had his name called on them, Genesis 4:26, being denominated the sons of God) now lost the sense of religion and broke the bounds of their just separation and mingled themselves with the daughters of men (Genesis 6:24). These were the women of Cain’s offspring, or of confederacy with his seed, by whose beauty they were entangled while they regarded the gratifying of their lust more than the true ends of marriage. Being entangled like this they were also drawn into a partnership with them in their abominations to such a degree that when the time of the flood came the pure worship of God was maintained only in the family of Noah, who found grace in the sight of God (Genesis 6:1-11). He was preserved in the ark so that by him and his sons the desolate earth might be again replenished with inhabitants after the foundation of the wicked had been destroyed with a flood (Job 22:16).
Nehemiah Coxe in Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ by Nehemiah Coxe & John Owen, edited by Ronald D. Miller, James M. Renihan. Francisco Orozco (Palmdale, CA: RBAP, 2005), 62
Notice that Coxe’s hermeneutic for interpreting this text is using clearer scripture (WCF 1.9/2LBC 1.9) and the theological motif of Genesis 3:15 in contrast to Heiser’s method which depends on Ancient Near Eastern texts and modern archeological discoveries. Heiser’s method is very naturalistic because it depends on general revelation, in particular archeological discoveries and one specific modern Ancient Near Eastern discovery in the last 20 years, the Apkallu story in Mesopotamian religion. Dr. Heiser states in the video above that any commentary not addressing the Apkallu story is outdated. Let’s see how Dr. Heiser’s theory ages when a future archeological discovery contradicts the apkallu story from a different ancient society. If you want to build your theology on one modern archeological discovery, then your theology will be in a constant state of flux since archeology is constantly discovering new items of antiquity and revising and critiquing their own theories (for example the JEDP theory of critical scholarship for the Pentateuch is denied in its original form from Wellhausen by modern scholars, and it is still constantly being revised since Mosaic and divine authorship are denied within their presuppositions). I prefer to ground my theological foundation on the Word of God and the unifying divine authorship of Scripture rather than ANE documents such as Heiser and others.
This is the link to my previous series on the Noahic covenant that helps readers understand the typology and a proper way to interpret the events of Noah an the flood as pointing to redemption in Christ:
Dr. Jordan Cooper, a confessional lutheran systematic theologian, has done a helpful series responding to Dr. Michael Heiser. There are a lot of exegetical and theological issues involved in these discussions and online debates. I appreciate Dr. Cooper’s approach which is thorough, but also charitable avoiding overly judgmental or harsh language unfortunately used in too many online debates.
I will only make a few brief observations here regarding Dr. Heiser’s hermeneutic. I agree with Dr. Cooper that although Dr. Heiser is critical of any tradition in biblical interpretation and theology and he (Heiser) is inconsistent because he has accepted the tradition of critical old testament scholars and Ancient Near Eastern literature as his hermeneutical grid. Although Dr. Heiser claims to be upholding a supernatural worldview through his method it is ironically based on enlightenment principles of interpretation and denies a sound hermeneutical method of letting Scripture interpret scripture via the unifying Divine author of all of Scripture. Dr. Heiser also inverts a basic protestant principle of hermeneutics: let difficult texts be understood in light of clearer texts of Scripture (see WCF 1.9 and 2LBC 1.9). Dr. Heiser’s divine council view uses a difficult exegetical text, Psalm 82:1 to advocate his divine council, which is then forced as the hermeneutical grid over all related passages about elohim, angels, and demons to get his theological system. As a last observation Dr. Heiser’s view creates his own traditon, his divine council is used to explain texts such as Genesis 1:26 is made to refer to the divine council, not the Trinity as historically understood in the historical Christian tradition. Dr. Heiser’s view is essentially henotheistic where Elohim is the Supreme God, but there are other elohim, lesser gods, such as angels and demons (he denies this label of henotheism, but it is clearly implied from his theology and is easy to reach by logical deduction if one accepts his Divine council theory).
This brief article by R.C. Sproul gives some brief principles for properly interpreting Scripture:
You can order a physical copy of Gustav Oehler’s Theology of the Old Testament from Just and Sinner Publishing. They have republished it in two parts (older versions are published in a single volume):
The following resources help to clarify the differences between what has become known as “Lordship salvation” in recent years and the historic reformed understanding of the distinction between law and gospel. A proper understanding of the law and gospel yields biblical Christ-focused preaching rather than legalism/moralism. It also helps Christians to better understand sanctification, assurance, and see Christ as they read and study Scripture by properly distinguishing law from gospel.
Puritan William Perkins made this helpful statement on the law and gospel:
The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect stimulates and stirs up. But it provides no remedy for it. However the gospel not only teaches us what is to be done, it also has the power of the Holy Spirit joined to it. When we are regenerated by him we receive the strength we need both to believe the gospel and to do what it commands. The law is, therefore, first in the order of teaching; then comes the gospel.
William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying and the calling of the Ministry (UK: Banner of Truth, 1996), 61 (reprint of the original 1606 English edition)
This law/gospel distinction was historically taught by the 17th century particular baptists such as Benjamin Keach:
He shews that all the Faculties of the Soul are corrupted, viz. their Minds and Understandings are blind and darkned, being ignorant of God, or without the knowledge of his pure and spotless Nature, Justice, and Holiness: There is none that seeketh after God. 2. By this he shews also the Poyson and Venom that was got into the Will; for as they have lost God, so they will not seek after him, like that of our Saviour, Ye will not come to me that ye might have Life, Joh. 5:40. Now till a Man comes to see his own wretched and woful condition, and understands the Nature of God, and the Nature and Tenure of the Holy Law of God, he cannot discern that absolute necessity there is of a perfect and compleat righteousness to Justifie him in God’s sight.
Benjamin Keach, The Marrow of True Justification, Or, Justification without Works (London: Dorman Newman, 1692), 3–4.
There is no mixing Works and Free Grace together, but one of these doth and will destroy the Nature of the other; and as it holds true in Election, so in Justification: If Justification was partly of Grace, and partly by Works done by the Creature, or from foreseen Holiness and sincere Obedience done by us; then Grace is no more Grace, or Works no more Works: For whatsoever proceeds of Grace (as our Annotators observe) that cometh freely, and is not of Debt, ‘But whatsoever cometh by Works, that cometh by Debt; but now Debt and Free Grace, or that which is free and absolutely by Grace, and that which is by Desert, are quite contrary things; therefore to say Men are called and justified, partly by Grace, and partly by Works done by the Creature, this were to put such things together as cannot agree; for ’tis to make Merit no Merit, Debt no Debt, Work no Work, Grace no Grace; and so to affirm and deny one and the same thing. From hence take this Argument: That which is of the Free Grace of God, is not by any Works done by the Creature. But Justification is of the Free Grace of God; therefore not by any Works done by the Creature. That being justified by his Grace we should be made Heirs according to the hope of Eternal Life, Tit. 3:5. From hence rises all the hopes we have of Salvation; ’tis by, or according to the Free Grace of God, through the Merits of Jesus Christ alone.
Ibid, 20–21
These podcast episodes are very useful introductions to a reformed understanding of the law and gospel distinction:
This is a very useful series that addresses the differences between Lordship and the historic law/gospel position by Pastor Mike Abendroth. Many Calvinistic Baptists (such as John MacArthur and John Piper) place a strong emphasis on lordship salvation, which places a strong emphasis on proofs or evidences of salvation and personal good works. The historic understanding of the law/gospel distinction gives a much more balanced and biblical view of good works, justification, and assurance for believers.
These two videos from Abounding Grace Radio give a more detailed discussion of law and gospel distinction and why it is important for Christ-centered preaching (sometimes called Redemptive historical preaching):
This interview from the Back to the Reformation podcast with Dr. Mike Abendroth and Pastor John Fonville on sanctification is very helpful in understanding the law/gospel distinction and how it helps believers to have a biblical understanding of sanctification, justification, and assurance. This is a longer and more detailed theological discussion than the previous interviews with Dr. Abendroth:
The following resources provide some confessional baptist critiques of theonomy. The difficulty in discussing theonomy is that there are various forms of this theology, so it is not always easy to identify the specific form or usage of this word without context and properly defining terms. A proper understanding of covenant theology, typology, the relationship between the Old and New testament, and the law of God are all subjects that relate to theonomy.
Pastor Josh Sommer gave this useful brief video discussing theonomy on the Baptist Broadcast:
This interview with Dr. Tom Hicks gives a useful overview of theonomy and some of its key theological tenets:
Dr. Hicks has written several useful blog posts on theonomy:
This video by Brandon Adams is a useful discussion about theonomy that addresses the different ways the term theonomy is used and general equity:
Brandon Adams has written several detailed blog posts on the 1689federalism website addressing theonomy and explaining why it is inconsistent for a baptist to be a theonomist due to the monocovenantal structure of traditional theonomy definitions:
In a recent book review on VanDrunen’s two kingdom theology I mentioned the unpublished doctoral dissertation of Ronald Baines on particular baptist two kingdoms theology among the US eastern particular baptists in America in the 20th century. The dissertation has not been published, but is available for free download from the University of Maine website:
Baines did write a journal article that helpfully summarizes some of the major points from the dissertation which can be found in Journal of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies (JIRBS) 2014: Separating God’s Two Kingdoms: Two Kingdom Theology among New England Baptists in the Early Republic by Ronald Baines. This material is very profitable especially for baptists to understand their historical roots and analyze modern discussions of church and state in light of our baptist heritage. Covenant theology does inform one’s view of the relationship between church and state.
*Broken Wharfe offers good discounts on particular baptist literature including the yearly JIRBS articles.
The following post will survey some of the theological concepts in Baines’ dissertation, specifically how the particular baptist covenant theology led to their view of God’s two kingdoms, the distinction between church and state. This is intended to briefly address some of the theology of historic particular baptists as it relates to church and state, but is by no means exhaustive. The curious reader can read the dissertation and journal article for a further detailed study.
Brandon Adams has also written many useful posts and analysis of two kingdoms on his website, Contrast:
Isaac Backus is given a large amount of attention within Baines’ dissertation. I have already written a book review summarizing Backus’ particular baptist covenant theology:
Dr. James Renihan and Liam Riordan wrote the Introduction (Chapter 1) for the unpublished dissertation as it was added posthumously while maintaining the content of the other chapters researched by Ronald Baines for his Ph.D at the University of Maine. The dissertation seeks to show the importance of two kingdoms theology as a crucial theological tenant of the east coast particular baptists in the 18th and 19th centuries,
This dissertation pays particularly close attention to Two Kingdoms theology as the core belief of Regular Baptists. It explores the everyday implications of this theology for spiritual practice and ecclesiastical organization in the trans-national northeast. The author recovers the crucial roles of Daniel Merrill and, especially, Isaac Case, who were pioneering Regular Baptists ministers in Maine, and balances this attention to the U.S. side of the border with their missions to the Maritimes and consideration of key figures there, especially Reverend Edward Manning. The study concludes with an assessment of the impact of the War of 1812 upon Regular Baptists in the northeast that emphasizes how their spirituality, interactive itineracy, associational commitments, and common missionary work were major sources of solidarity that held them close together even as the war temporarily halted mutual work and strengthened national and imperial traditions in the United States, British North America, and the British Empire. Again, Two Kingdoms theology, which stresses the separation of religious and civil realms, was an essential foundation for the trans-national identity of Regular Baptists in the northeastern borderlands (1-2)
At the outset it is important to understand the vocabulary used in the dissertation and the historical study of the 19th century east coast particular baptists. They are called regular baptists, but this term is synonymous with confessional baptists and particular baptists who subscribed to the historic confessions such as the second london baptist confession of faith (1677) in contrast to many non-confessional modern day baptist churches and denominations.
The phrase Regular Baptist refers to Baptists in early North America who accepted the doctrines of Calvinism, valued order in worship and polity, evangelized with the anticipation of conversions, and adopted (in some form) one of the standard Baptist Confessions—the Second London Confession of 1677/1689, the Philadelphia Confession of 1742 (a version of Second London with two additional articles), and the Charleston and Warren, Rhode Island, Confessions, 4 both of 1767 (and identical to that of Philadelphia).1 The churches were regular in so far as they kept the rule as defined in these Confessions of Faith (3-4).
The introduction provides a helpful summary of Baines’ thesis on the importance of two kingdoms theology for distinguishing church and state. The particular baptists were persecuted and forced to pay state taxes to support the state funded paedobaptist ministers despite being non-conformists and holding to a credobaptist view. The one kingdom theology of their paedobaptist brothers did not allow for religious dissent as church and state were united in a one kingdom theology view.
They adopted what Baines calls a “Two Kingdoms theology,” fundamental to all the decisions of their lives. This theology understood that the lordship of God was evidenced in very different ways, in two distinct kingdoms. One was the kingdom of Christ, which on earth manifests itself in his churches (note: not “church”), following carefully the mandates taught by Jesus and his apostles and recorded in the Scriptures. Each local congregation is, in itself, an expression of this Kingdom. The other domain is the divinely established political sphere. Only those who profess faith belong to the first, all people are subjects in the latter. This doctrine was developed against the so-called “One Kingdom theology” of the sacral society that had been dominant in European Christianity since the time of Constantine. In it, the church and state were largely co-terminus with one another. The state was the “nursing father” (to use a phrase from the 1646 Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith), supporting and even enforcing conformity to the religious practices of the church. In its strongest form, One Kingdom theology and its worldly implementation did not tolerate religious dissent (4).
The Baptists, as dissenters, long suffered under the hand of magisterial rulers and articulated a distinct conception of the relationship between the two realms. For them, religious and civil liberty were supreme values that required protection and sharp delineation. While the Standing Order (the established Congregational churches of Massachusetts and Connecticut) was 1 Bill T. Leonard, Baptists in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012), 18, 109. 5 nurtured by the state, Baptists protested vigorously. The body politic was not identical with the Kingdom of God, and the two must never be confused. Of course, the circumstances were very different for the nascent Maritime Baptist churches, and their struggles reflected their own conditions. Still, because the most numerous pre-loyalist Protestant migrants to Nova Scotia were Congregationalists from southern New England—the so-called “Planters”—who had been attracted to settle on former Acadian lands in the late 1750s and 1760s with the promise of religious liberty, the local popular religious culture in the trans-national region had deep underlying similarities. Indeed, the fact that Regular Baptists flourished across the region from, at least, the 1790s through the 1820s, is a powerful indication of the common spiritual and cultural landscape of the northeastern borderlands (4-5).
The two kingdoms theology articulated by the american regular baptists was deeply rooted in their understanding of God’s covenants. One important influence was John Gill, one of the most prominent figures in particular baptist history due to his prolific writing.
John Gill played a significant role through his influential publications, and Isaac Backus directly used the language of the English Baptist Confessions. This suggests interesting trajectories for future scholars—what role did the writings of English Particular Baptists play in the later development of North American Baptist doctrine and polity? Certainly, the question of influence is difficult and fraught with significant challenges, nevertheless an investigation of the trans-Atlantic traffic of Baptist principles would be enlightening (13).
Baines does mention how the historic practice of associationism among the regular baptist churches helped to provide a robust ecclesiology amongst the congregational church polity of the baptists,
Chapter Five investigates the principles of associationalism. While Baptist doctrine advocated autonomy for each congregation, it never demanded isolation from similar groups. Opponents may have surmised that a radical form of independence would result from their principles, but this was not the case. The Two Kingdoms theology called the churches to mutual recognition and cooperation. Baines carefully demonstrates that the Baptist practice negotiated the straits between collaboration and congregational sovereignty. Two Kingdoms theology necessitated that each church maintain its independence from external authority structures (such as were present in the parish and consociation systems), while at the same time engaging in mutual efforts to extend the kingdom. This required great skill, and the associations were established in such a way as to respect both tenets. Several examples of the protective principles erected are provided, clearly demonstrating that power could not be consolidated in organizations outside the churches. At the same time, the assemblies provided advice and labor for the growth of the cause (16).
A key theological difference between the paedobaptists and regular baptists is how the kingdom of God is defined. Is it one kingdom without distinction between church and state or two kingdoms? Baptism is another key difference, but as Baines mentions this difference is related two covenant theology and the implications it has for both relationship between church and state and how the means of grace (baptism and Lord’s supper) ought to be administered and who should receive them.
While the proper administration of baptism was a critical difference between the Baptists and the Standing Order, it would be an unfortunate oversimplification to think that this was the sum and substance of their dissimilarities. As Merrill discovered in his pilgrimage from paedobaptism to believer’s baptism, the Baptists held to a cluster of beliefs that uniquely defined them and determined their interaction with other corporate and social entities at many levels. One of the most important doctrinal differences was about the nature and subjects of the Kingdom of God. The Baptist doctrinal formulation of the Kingdom of God provided an overarching framework through which they not only identified themselves in ecclesiastically distinctive ways from the Standing Order, it also shaped Baptists’ conceptualization of their place in the social and civil world of everyday life (22-23).
For example, the Kingdom of God as a theological construct framed their understanding of civil liberty and the limits of political power, and, therefore, provided the paradigm through which the Baptists advocated the separation of church and state. Likewise, it governed their understanding of the nature and character of the church, and so was the template through which they viewed ecclesiastical communion and the necessity of departure from the state church; separation for the Baptists was bi-directional (23).
The distinct view of the regular baptists was based on their understanding of biblical typology and federal or covenant theology. The Old Testament covenant community consisted of both spiritual and physical descendants of Abraham, but the New Covenant community of believers as the antitype consists of a greater fulfilment by Christ, therefore the church consist of the spiritual seed of Abraham rather than a mixed seed of both physical and spiritual. This understanding of typology and covenant theology helped form their critique of the national church one kingdom theology of the paedobaptists.
Hermeneutically, Merrill built on a long tradition of Baptist thinkers who saw a fundamental flaw in the typological paedobaptist practice of looking to Old Testament Israel as the foundation for infant baptism and church membership. This led them to see unwarranted typological connections between Israel and the Church as well as between Israel and the civil magistrate. In other words, the hermeneutical error of the paedobaptists had both ecclesiastical and civil implications: implications which Baptists believed provided long standing justification for civil and ecclesiastical tyranny in both Old and New England (26).
The Baptists held the state-church system to be fundamentally at odds with the New Testament revelation of the Kingdom of Heaven because of the necessary connection between the subjects of the two. If the Kingdom was spiritual rather than physical, then entrance into the Kingdom and membership in the church must both be spiritual as well. Backus believed missing this point led to carrying over Old Testament elements of “the covenant of circumcision,” where “regenerate and unregenerate were bound together in a national church,” leading to the theological justification for forming national churches. “But men . . . have generally held to the bringing of persons into the kingdom of God by blood, by their own wills, or by the wills of other men; and from thence have come all national churches.”47 (33).
While some in recent years have grouped the particular baptists with the anabaptists they each had distinct theological views despite both affirming credobaptism. Baines briefly summarizes their differences on two kingdoms theology,
Unlike the two kingdoms in Anabaptist theology, for the Baptists the two kingdoms were not antagonistic to each other. They were distinct, having different spheres, different governing rules, and different means for maintaining that rule. The Baptists did not seek to separate from the kingdoms of the world, but to see them operate within their God ordained spheres. When this objective failed, when the physical sword was used in support of the spiritual sword, it threatened trouble for both kingdoms. Untangling the kingdoms, however, required giving due attention to the ways God ordained for His kingdom to grow (46).
This last section will provide some citations to give a brief overview of the theology of Daniel Merrill, a former presbyterian minister in Maine who later became a particular baptist minister.
In becoming a Regular Baptist, Merrill did not invent a theological middle way between the Presbyterian Westminster Confession or the Congregational Savoy Declaration, grounded in the new nation’s commitment to religious and civil liberty. Rather, he embraced a long-standing advocacy of Two Kingdoms theology developed within Baptist ranks for over a century, which set clear limits between the two legitimate authorities, one ecclesial and the other magisterial. These were embodied in the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1677/68, which is akin to the Westminster and Savoy documents, but in a number of areas departed significantly from them, especially its understanding of the nature and limits of civil and religious liberty. Merrill well reflected his own times, even as he embraced a long-standing viewpoint (240).
Merill made several important theological distinctions that informed both his covenant theology and theology of the kingdom of God:
I. Distinction between natural and positive law
Merrill drew upon a well-established and careful distinction in post-Reformation theology articulating two different types of law: Moral and Positive. The phrase “Moral law” described unchanging eternal law, considered to be a transcript of divine righteousness, and available to all people through the Imago Dei. “Positive law” differed in that it required a direct and special revelation to be known, and generally remained in force only during a particular historical covenant. Merrill’s English contemporary, Andrew Fuller, nicely expressed the difference: “the one [moral] is commanded because it is right, the other [positive] is right because it is commanded.” The difference between positive laws or institutions and other forms of law was a distinction held by Baptists and paedobaptists alike. Merrill expected both his auditors and his opponents in the debate to understand fully this distinction. While this is not the place for a detailed analysis of the nature of law in Calvinist thought, the difference between moral law and positive law was crucial and a vital distinction that tended to be ignored by Baptist opponents (222-223).
II. Positive law and circumcision
Therefore, when paedobaptists attempted to use the Old Testament positive law of circumcision as a ground for baptism, in the eyes of the Baptists they violated the nature of positive law. Circumcision was commanded for Israel, yet Israel was not the New Testament Church, except in type. Therefore, Merrill insisted, the fact that children in Israel were circumcised had no bearing on the New Testament Church. There must be a positive command of Christ in the New Testament to baptize infants for the church to justify this practice (223).
III. Baptism’s relationship to ceremonial washing in the Old Testament types
In his second of seven sermons, Merrill addressed the detailed lexical definitions for the Greek word for baptism, concluding that baptism and washing are synonyms. Expanding his original definition slightly, he remarked to his congregation, “the definition which I gave of baptism was, a washing, a sacred, a ceremonial washing. I will now add to this definition that it is immersion, or dipping one all over in water.” (224).
IV. Visible and Invisible church distinction
This “end” struck at the heart of the One Kingdom theology of many Standing Order ministers. Merrill clarified two topics in this end. First, he addressed the visible versus the invisible aspects of the church and kingdom. There was an invisible church of God and an invisible kingdom of God to which all true believers were members irrespective of the ordinance of baptism. What had changed for him as he embraced Baptist theology and practice was that the visible church and the visible kingdom of God were intended to approximate this invisible church and the invisible kingdom of God as nearly humanly possible. Thus, the local church, for Merrill, was the visible expression of the kingdom of God, and it must be kept as pure as possible from contamination; it was a pure church ideal. This was to be done by guarding the doors of the church such that only professed believers (i.e., professed members of the invisible church and invisible kingdom) could enter the visible church and so become members of the visible kingdom of God. This also meant that there was no place for the civil magistrate, the kingdoms of this world, to have any standing in the kingdom of God on earth (226).
This dissertation by Baines is an important and neglected work among many modern baptists and lord willing it may get published one day. Reading Baines helps provide a better biblical and historical position for baptists’ understanding of the Kingdom of God and the relationship to church and state. It also is important for understanding some of the distinctives of particular baptist theology as it relates to the Kingdom of God and shows where baptists would differ from some contemporary proponents of two kingdom theology such as VanDrunen based on differences in their covenant theology.
Two useful discussions comparing different views on covenant theology. The first video compares various views such as 1689 federalism (Dr. Samuel Renihan), Progressive Covenantalism (Dr. Stephen Wellum), and Westminster Federalism (Dr. Guy Waters) with various guests interacting with each others’ views.
For further comparison of Dr. Michael Beck’s Klinean baptist approach with 1689 federalism, Brandon Adams has written a helpful article comparing them:
This second discussion compares a Westminster approach to the covenants with a more historic particular Baptist approach (also called 1689 federalism):
The following comes from one of my Seminary assignments with some expanded sections to give further citations. It is not exhaustive in addressing every detail of the book, but attempts to give an overview of the key theological concepts and is a helpful guide for Christians to think biblically about the proper relationship between the Church and the world e.g. state, education, vocation or occupation. The end of the book does briefly address vocations or calling, but this review will not be addressing this topic in particular. I recommend two books for those interested in learning more about the historic doctrine of vocation: Ordinary: Sustainable faith in a radical, restless world by Michael Horton and God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in All of Life by Gene Edward Veith Jr. These two books offer a helpful historical protestant and balanced view of vocation and offer a much better alternative than perspectives such as David Platt’s unbalanced approach in Radical: Taking back your faith from the American Dream.
Even though the book under review was written in 2010 by David VanDrunen it helpfully addresses many of the contemporary discussions on Christian nationalism amongst Christians today. The approach is strongly covenantal and therefore many evangelicals outside of a reformed theological framework will be mostly unfamiliar with the position taken by VanDrunen. I will note at the outset that there are various views historically between two kingdoms within the confessional reformed community so I am not stating that VanDrunen represents all reformed Christians, but I do find his approach helpful even though I would disagree on some points.
For anyone interested in a robust articulation of Two Kingdoms theology from a particular baptist perspective I highly recommend the unpublished doctoral dissertation of Dr. Baines, which uses the particular baptist understanding of two-fold typology in the Abrahamic covenant to articulate a robust two-kingdoms theology. The dissertation is free to download at the University of Maine website for anyone interested:
Brandon Adam’s has provided some helpful critiques of VanDrunen’s use of natural law, which I do not address in the review below, but will refer anyone interested to refer to his material:
Now I proceed to a review of VanDrunen’s book. One editorial note, for the citations below the original had italics, but due to wordpress making all blockquotes italics I have changed those words to bold to keep the emphasis found in the original citations otherwise the words emphasized by the author are indistinguishable in the citations since all words in the blockquotes are put in italics.
At the outset within this complex dialogue with various views it is important to clearly define theological views to avoid misrepresenting positions and speaking past one another. VanDrunen shows humility in acknowledging that Christians can learn even from those whom they may disagree with on the relationship between church and state:
A person can learn some very important things about Christianity and the Christian’s cultural responsibilities by reading neo-Calvinist, New Perspective, and emerging authors. The physical created world is God’s good creation, sin is a horrible and distorting thing, God has not given up on his original goal for creation, cultural vocations are honorable and beneficial, Christians should think critically about sin’s effects upon cultural life, and the resurrection and the new heaven and new earth are the great Christian hope. The problem is, I believe, that these authors quite confidently give the impression that their visions of cultural transformation, the kingdom of God, and the new creation are the only way to affirm these things. They suggest that the only people who would oppose their vision are those who are indifferent to the broader culture, reject the resurrection, and hope only to escape to heaven where they will float around as happy spirits. This is a terribly distorted and misleading suggestion”.
David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 24–25
VanDrunen offers several reasons for writing his book on God’s Two Kingdoms both as a corrective to the methodology of modern approaches and with the acknowledgment that modern approaches do arrive at some proper and biblical conclusions such as acknowledging the effects of sin and the fall on all areas of life despite their shortcoming in other areas. He provides some useful clarifications in the introduction in his response to what he calls a transformationalist approach predominately advocated by neo-calvinists, N.T. Wright, and some within the emerging church movement:
For example, many contemporary voices assert that God is redeeming all legitimate cultural activities and institutions and that Christians are therefore called to transform them accordingly and to build the kingdom of God through this work. Some advocates of this position claim that redemption is God’s work of restoration, empowering human beings to pick up again the task of the first human beings, Adam and Eve, and to develop human culture as they were originally called to do. This redemptive transformation of present human culture begins a process that will culminate in the new creation—the new heaven and new earth. According to this vision of Christian cultural engagement, our cultural products will adorn the eternal city”.
David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 13
In contrast to this approach which identifies Christians as new adamites attempting to fulfill the culture mandate the two kingdoms approach offers a more biblically and historically robust understanding of both the common and redemptive kingdoms. The model proposed has a robust covenantal structure, in particular the Noahic, Adamic, and Abrahamic covenants are crucial:
A biblical two-kingdoms doctrine provides another compelling way to do so. According to this doctrine, God is not redeeming the cultural activities and institutions of this world, but is preserving them through the covenant he made with all living creatures through Noah in Genesis 8:20–9:17. God himself rules this “common kingdom,” and thus it is not, as some writers describe it, the “kingdom of man.” This kingdom is in no sense a realm of moral neutrality or autonomy. God makes its institutions and activities honorable, though only for temporary and provisional purposes. Simultaneously, God is redeeming a people for himself, by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham and brought to glorious fulfillment in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, who has completed Adam’s original task once and for all. These redeemed people are citizens of the “redemptive kingdom,” whom God is gathering now in the church and will welcome into the new heaven and new earth at Christ’s glorious return. Until that day, Christians live as members of both kingdoms, discharging their proper duties in each. They rejoice to be citizens of heaven through membership in the church, but also recognize that for the time being they are living in Babylon, striving for justice and excellence in their cultural labors, out of love for Christ and their neighbor, as sojourners and exiles in a land that is not their lasting home”.
David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 15
Rather than redeeming all aspects of society there is a proper distinction between God’s redemptive and common rule in two-kingdom theology. It must be emphasized as VanDrunen repeatedly mentions throughout his book that Christians are no longer under the covenant of works due to it being fulfilled by Christ on their behalf. God rules over the common kingdom via the Noahic covenant and preserves these common institutions but their goals are temporary rather than eternal such as upholding justice in the civil sphere. The redemptive kingdom, the church, has an eternal hope and focus and includes the concepts of sojourners as Christians are members of both the common and redemptive kingdoms prior to being united with Christ in the eternal state. This approach helps to avoid the extremes of an over-realized eschatology that is clearly present in the transformationalist approach due to its faulty understanding of the biblical covenants.
VanDrunen addresses another theological departure within the transformationalist approach, notably a tendency to depart from the historic protestant doctrine of justification:
It is no coincidence that Wright both finds the traditional Reformation view of justification inadequate and also embraces the redemptive transformation of human culture. Before we consider Surprised by Hope, let me briefly state a bold claim that I will defend in subsequent chapters. Those who hold a traditional Protestant view of justification consistently should not find a redemptive transformationist perspective attractive. As some of the Reformers grasped, a two-kingdoms doctrine is a proper companion to a Protestant doctrine of justification”.
David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 21.
God therefore does not call us back to complete the task that the first Adam fumbled. This is a key reason why I stated above that a Protestant doctrine of justification is ultimately incompatible with a redemptive transformationist view of culture along the lines of neo-Calvinism, the New Perspective on Paul, or the emergent church. Our cultural task as already-justified Christians is fundamentally different from that of the first Adam, who was to perform his cultural work during a period of probation”.
David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 57-58
I agree with VanDrunen that affirming the historic doctrine of justification should serve as a robust foundation to avoid being attracted towards the transformationalist approaches and likewise having a proper covenantal framework guides a biblical approach to God’s two kingdoms. A proper view of Adam, the Adamic covenant, and justification are all foundational doctrinal issues than cannot be overlooked in discussing God’s two kingdoms. This critique is not unique to the federal vision mentioned in the citation above, but also is useful in responding to the modern theonomist movement which errors in many of the same ways in terms of justification, law/gospel, and their understanding of the biblical covenants.
VanDrunen draws attention to the covenant of works and federal headship in Adam and Christ as a crucial component of two-kingdom theology:
This is another crucial issue for understanding Christianity and culture. The first Adam would find that his commission in this world was impossible to fulfill and therefore that his final destiny was impossible to achieve. Paul comments that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23) and later proclaims that “the wages of sin is death” (6:23). Human cultural life did not come to an end with the fall, but now cultural endeavors are plagued with sinful failure. The end result is not glory, but death and destruction. Fallen human culture cannot attain the new creation“.
David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 45-46
By properly framing the relationship between Adam and Christ it helps yield a proper orientation of the relationship between Christians and culture. Due to sin it is impossible to redeem the culture of a fallen world. Only the eschatological new creation will fully restore this fallen world, not the cultural endeavors of new adamites. As VanDrunen aptly mentions, Adam would see the task of modern-day transformationalists as impossible due to sin. Cultural transformation is therefore not comparable to Adam’s original pre-fall task in the covenant of works.
This creation mandate from a post-fall perspective must be viewed through Christ’s fulfillment of the covenant of works given to Adam:
This is absolutely essential for issues of Christianity and culture! If Christ is the last Adam, then we are not new Adams. To understand our own cultural work as picking up and finishing Adam’s original task is, however unwittingly, to compromise the sufficiency of Christ’s work. Christ perfectly atoned for all our sins, and hence we have no sins left to atone personally. Likewise, Christ perfectly sustained a time of testing similar to Adam’s: he achieved the new creation through his flawless obedience in this world. He has left nothing yet to be accomplished. God indeed calls Christians to suffer and to pursue cultural tasks obediently through our lives. But to think that our sufferings contribute to atoning for sin or that our cultural obedience contributes to building the new creation is to compromise the all-sufficient work of Christ”.
David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 50-51
VanDrunen builds further on the previous statement with the covenantal concept of Adam and federal headship by properly locating the fulfillment in Christ. If a cultural mandate yet remains this would imply Christ did not perfectly fulfill the covenant of works. This would also allow for some forms of neonomianism to creep in as new adamites attempt to contribute their work to inaugurate the new creation (this is clearly present in some advocates within the theonomist movement, notably advocates of the federal vision). Given that Christ is the author of the new creation it is improper to see ourselves as participating in the new creation work through some type of cultural redemption when Christ has already achieved it for us. Christians have an eschatological hope founded on the redemptive work of Christ therefore our hope is not to create heaven on earth by redeeming common institutions.
To properly understand the framework of Christian participation in society it is necessary to understand the concept of sojourners taught throughout Scripture and how it relates to God’s covenants:
If we wish to understand the Christian’s place in this world, therefore, we must go back to the Old Testament to learn about the themes of sojourning and exile and then, from the New Testament, inquire how we are sojourners and exiles today”.
David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 74
To summarize, God founds the two kingdoms by means of two covenants. The covenant with Noah (Genesis 9) formally establishes and regulates the common kingdom. The covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15, 17) formally establishes and regulates the redemptive kingdom. By observing the development of these two kingdoms in the Old Testament we can begin to understand what the New Testament means when it refers to Christians, living in this world and participating in human culture, as sojourners and exiles”.
David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 75-76
Tracing the concept of sojourner back to its inception in Genesis, VanDrunen discusses the development of society following the fall and looks at the antithesis between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent (Genesis 3:15). He does acknowledge in a footnote to the above citation that the redemptive kingdom has its origin in the promise of the coming Messiah in Genesis 3:15. From the beginning of history man has been a sojourner. For example, Abraham’s life was characterized by sojourning in expectation of God’s eschatological promised land. The Noahic covenant further clarifies many of the functions of the common kingdom which we must all live in for the present time. The Noahic covenant is God’s promise to preserve the present world until the second coming and the new creation. It also provides some basic principles of justice that help uphold society (Genesis 9:5-6), but it offers no redemptive hope within these common institutions unlike the redemptive nature of the Church.
A useful example of this sojourner theology applied within the two-kingdoms framework is VanDrunen’s discussion of the Babylonian exile:
Yet it is very important to note that the exile was truly a two-kingdoms experience for Israel. They participated in the common kingdom alongside Babylonians under the provisions of the Noahic covenant. But they were also radically separated from the Babylonians as the children of Abraham who still participated in the redemptive kingdom. Whatever cultural commonality they now shared with the Babylonians, they were also to maintain a radical spiritual antithesis… Preachers today often take these familiar words out of context and apply them to Christians’ ordinary cultural activities, as if God promises to prosper them in their work and finances. But the “hope” and “future” that God speaks of here is not in regard to their ordinary cultural activities in Babylon but the end of their exile and their return to the Promised Land after seventy years (29:10, 14; Deut. 30:1–3)”.
David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 93-94
Israel under Babylonian exile tested the faith of Israel. They were required to remain faithful to God while living in the common kingdom of a foreign political power. They were not called to “redeem Babylon”, but to be faithful and have their hope in God’s promises revealed to them of a greater eschatological hope and a greater second exodus through the Messiah, Christ. They were able to live in both kingdoms by placing their hope in God’s promises and not in their present circumstances while living under persecution. This is also important to demonstrate that despite the spiritual antithesis between Isarel and Babylon they could still participate in common institutions together for example Daniel serving in the civil sphere while remaining faithful to God and having a proper eschatological hope in the eternal kingdom.
The redemptive kingdom must be understood in terms of Christ’s establishment of the New Testament Church, he did not establish other institutions:
Until that day of ultimate fulfillment, the covenant of grace and the redemptive kingdom find their penultimate fulfillment in the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. When Christ came, he did not establish the state, or the family, or a school, or a business venture. These things already existed and were governed and preserved under the covenant with Noah. The Lord Jesus Christ established one thing: his church. According to the New Testament, the redemptive kingdom and the covenant of grace come to their fullest earthly expression in the church, and in the church alone. It is true, of course, that Christians are citizens of this kingdom and members of this covenant at all times. They should live obedient lives to Christ in every aspect of life and should manifest the power of Christ’s kingdom and covenant in all they do. But the church is the only institution and community in this world that can be identified with the redemptive kingdom and the covenant of grace”.
David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 102
This distinction is crucial and has already been previously mentioned by VanDrunen. The common institutions, e.g. the state and family were already instituted under the Noahic covenant and are common to all mankind. On the other hand, the church has a unique place due to it being established by Christ and being governed by the covenant of grace. This properly established the lordship of Christ over the church in a unique way from his Lordship over common institutions. Christ’s lordship over common institutions is not redemptive as it is in the church. This also has implications for the officers and functions of the church. Given that the church is established by Christ, he has established the standards for ministers and for the function of the church in terms of worship and the means of grace (preaching, baptism, the Lord’s supper, and prayer). The state cannot mandate these elements because it is outside of their common kingdom’s jurisdiction.
VanDrunen does make some theological errors in attempting to identify the members of the church because of his mixed community view of the church due to infant baptism:
In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.… And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (3:26–27, 29). Of course not every baptized person has true faith in Christ, but for Paul, as a general matter, the people of faith are those who have been set apart by baptism, and the community of the baptized is the church. Paul keeps speaking of “you” and “we” as the heirs of Abraham in Galatians 3 because he is addressing “the churches of Galatia” (1:2). The church, as the community of the baptized, claims the promises of the Abrahamic covenant. No other earthly institution or organization is identified by the mark of baptism, and thus none of them can claim these promises”.
David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 104
If, as VanDrunen suggests, the church is a community of the baptized that claims the promises of this redemptive covenant, then why do these baptized yet unregenerate members not partake of the Lord’s supper as the historical half-way covenant view taught and modern federal vision proponents advocate? If baptism is administered to infants and it is the mark of these covenantal promises, then should they not receive all the means of grace indiscriminately? Without a proper distinction of the Abrahamic covenant between the physical and spiritual seed based upon a two-tier typology the paedobaptist view quickly becomes untenable. The historic Baptist view offers a better alternative that, although not infallible in determining if someone is regenerate, seeks to properly administer the means of grace to regenerate members of the new covenant. I do agree with VanDrunen in the uniqueness of the means of grace since no common institutions administer baptism nor the Lord’s supper and this further sets the redemptive kingdom apart from the common kingdom in their roles.
VanDrunen does provide some balanced advice to how Christians should live in the common kingdom.
First, Christians should pursue cultural activities not with a spirit of triumph and conquest over their neighbors but with a spirit of love and service toward them. Far too often Christian writers and leaders imbue their audience with a drive to take over—to take over politics, education, the courts, and whatever else (or maybe it is put in more palatable terms, such as taking back instead of taking over, as if Christians are the rightful owners of everything and are simply reclaiming what is already theirs)”.
David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 124-125
Christians should interact with the common kingdom and act honorably in their vocations (their earthly common occupations) by being faithful in their calling. Christians are sojourners in the common kingdom, they can serve their earthly masters faithfully while maintaining their faithfulness to Christ as Lord over the church and the redemptive kingdom. Christians are not attempting to inaugurate Christ’s kingdom because it is already here in the church and the great commission is the means to grow the church not cultural transformation.
VanDrunen rightfully draws his readers back to a proper appreciation for the church and its significance for believers in light of two-kingdoms theology:
The church is primary for the Christian life. Every other institution—the family, the school, the business corporation, the state—is secondary in the practice of the Christian religion. The church is where the chief action of the Christian life takes place. If we do not understand that fact, then we will also fail to understand secondary aspects of our Christian life, such as studying, working, and voting”.
David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 132
As we come to the end of this first section of the chapter, therefore, the first practical implication that we should draw from the two-kingdoms doctrine is that it places the church front and center in the Christian life. Cultural work is honorable, but we must approach it in a way that respects the priority of corporate worship and the celebration of the Lord’s Day. The church is the redemptive kingdom here on earth, and where the church is not our first love we are doomed to take an unhealthy perspective on the cultural activities of the common kingdom”.
David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 140–141.
The church and the means of grace are essential to the Christian life not redeeming culture. Christians grow in grace and love for Christ through the means of grace and corporate worship on the Lord’s day. We are not sanctified by the institutions of the common kingdom. Christ is the hope of believers therefore our eschatological hope must be grounded in him not in earthly institutions. Unfortunately many modern evangelicals have shifted towards a highly individualistic approach to the Christian life and have lost a biblical doctrine of the church and the means of grace. This shift towards individualism may be one reason why the Christian nationalist movement is enticing to so many contemporary evangelicals. Evangelical Christians should return to a focus on the means of grace, emphasizing the proclamation of the law and gospel and Christ every Lord’s day.
1677 Baptist/ 1677 Bautista /1677 Batista 