The Keys To The Two Kingdoms: Covenantal Framework As The Fundamental Divide Between VanDrunen And His Critics

By John Wind

[John Wind is a Ph.D. student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. This article is a revised version of a paper he presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society held in Baltimore, Md., November 19-21, 2013.]

I. Introduction

The debate within Reformed circles between a “two kingdoms” view and a neo-Calvinist or “one kingdom” view is one recent expression of the ongoing debate over the relationship between Christianity and culture.[1] In this article I will focus on the writings of one advocate of the two kingdoms position, David VanDrunen, professor of systematic theology and Christian ethics at Westminster Seminary California. I will first examine some common criticisms of VanDrunen, demonstrating that these differences between VanDrunen and his critics are either on secondary matters or are mainly misunderstandings rather than significant differences. I will then argue that the fundamental divide between VanDrunen and his critics is their differing conceptions of the covenantal framework of Scripture. I will attempt to clarify this, at times, contentious debate, as well as, hopefully, to further our understanding of the covenantal framework of Scripture.

II. Summary Of VanDrunen’s Two Kingdoms Doctrine

VanDrunen’s basic argument is that Scripture reveals God as ruling all creation as king, but that his rule is administered by means of two distinct covenants that establish two different kingdoms.[2] The members of one kingdom consist of all humanity—both believers and unbelievers—enjoying the benefits of God’s gracious rule expressed in general providence and preservation, temporal blessings shared by all people commonly. This kingdom is a common grace kingdom administered through the Noahic Covenant established by God with all humanity as revealed in Gen 9. God governs this common grace kingdom by means of general revelation and the natural law which is written on every human heart by virtue of their creation in the image of God, a law which, though suppressed to varying degrees by sinful humanity, is nonetheless the common point of moral reference between all people, whether believers or unbelievers, living together within broader society.

The members of the second kingdom consist only of true believers who are in Christ, having experienced new birth by the Holy Spirit, enjoying the benefits of God’s gracious rule expressed in salvation and in the granting of eternal blessing and life. Believers are therefore members of both kingdoms simultaneously. This second kingdom is a special grace kingdom administered at one time in history through the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, but now administered solely by the New Covenant established by God through Christ with his church, a covenant that fulfills the earlier special grace covenants. God governs this kingdom by means of the special revelation of Scripture, which, though authoritative for all people, is not accepted as authoritative by non-Christians and therefore can only function as the common point of moral reference and doctrinal truth within the special grace kingdom of professed believers rather than within the common grace kingdom in which believers and unbelievers are mixed.

Though VanDrunen believes this view best represents the data of Scripture, a significant part of his academic project has also been to demonstrate that the Reformed tradition for its first four hundred years taught various versions of a two kingdoms doctrine.[3] VanDrunen argues that one key aspect of earlier Reformed two kingdoms views was an understanding of “the two mediatorships of the Son of God, over creation and redemption respectively,” a common doctrine within Reformed theology from Calvin to Kuyper.[4] This doctrine taught that “Christ rules the one kingdom as eternal God, as the agent of creation and providence, and over all creatures. Christ rules the other kingdom as the incarnate God-man, as the agent of redemption, and over the church.”[5] VanDrunen posits that during the twentieth century, Reformed theology rejected this traditional two kingdoms doctrine and embraced a view of Christianity and culture that might be described as a one kingdom view.[6] Yet, while VanDrunen does give detailed attention to the systematic conclusions of historic Reformed theology, he ultimately seeks to argue for his version of the two kingdoms doctrine on the basis of exegesis and biblical theology and not merely in either deference or opposition to the claims of earlier theologians.[7]

III. VanDrunen’s Critics’ Main Points Of Contention

1. Misreading Of The Reformed Tradition

One significant critique of VanDrunen is that he has misread the Reformed theological tradition, misunderstanding the views of key figures such as Calvin, Kuyper, and Bavinck.[8] It is beyond the scope of this article to referee these historical debates, and the argument of this article does not depend upon which side in the end has the more correct grasp of exactly how these Reformed forebears conceived of a two kingdoms doctrine. Still, VanDrunen’s historiographical research seems, at a minimum, to establish a legitimate compatibility between some conception of a two kingdoms doctrine and historic Reformed theology. Even so, VanDrunen clarifies that his historical argument is “not meant to suggest that I agree with everything that Reformed theologians wrote about natural law and the two kingdoms before the twentieth century” when in fact “my chief long-term concern is not historical, but the constructive development of a biblically, theologically, and ethically sound approach to the Christian’s life in the broader culture.”[9] For VanDrunen, the question of what Calvin or Kuyper believed is important yet secondary to the primary question of what Scripture teaches, an order of priority that VanDrunen’s critics would no doubt affirm.[10] Therefore, though VanDrunen and his critics are somewhat divided in their interpretations of the Reformed tradition, their more fundamental division is related to their interpretation of Scripture.[11]

2. Restriction Of The Christian Worldview To Institutional Church Life

While varying interpretations of the Reformed tradition represent real, but secondary differences between VanDrunen and his critics, other criticisms of VanDrunen prove to be misunderstandings of his position rather than points of significant disagreement between the two sides. A major criticism of VanDrunen is that his view restricts the expression of the Christian worldview to the sphere of the institutional church. Critics claim VanDrunen teaches that when Christians participate in broader society, they should not use the Bible as their norm of personal conduct since it is not relevant to public moral discussion but only to “the realm of the church,” a radically dualistic conception of the Christian life.[12] Therefore, Christian engagement with culture should not be “distinctively Christian” nor carried out under the openly acknowledged “sovereign rule of Jesus Christ” since the civil kingdom is “sharply distinguished” from the church, “all human life and conduct” divided into “two hermetically separated domains or realms,” necessarily leading to “a compartmentalized life.”[13]

Contrary to these claims, VanDrunen rejects the accusation that a two kingdoms view “compromises God’s reign over all things and discourages Christians from energetic engagement in their earthly vocations.”[14] VanDrunen does believe Scripture addresses matters such as education, work, and politics, “thus provid[ing] Christians with a proper perspective on them and clear boundaries for participating in them.”[15] In contrast to the radical dualism of which he is accused, VanDrunen states unequivocally, “Christians are Christians seven days a week, in whatever place or activity they find themselves, and thus they must always strive to live consistently with their profession of Christ,” showing that VanDrunen agrees with his critics that Christians should integrate their church life with their public life.[16]

3. Rejection Of Christian Education

Related to the charge of dualism, critics also charge VanDrunen with denying the need for distinctively “Christian” education outside of the local church. Kloosterman believes the neo-Calvinist position undergirds the modern, Reformed, Christian school movement, implying the incompatibility between the two kingdoms position and a vital vision for Christian education.[17] Zylstra goes so far as to claim that VanDrunen “intend[s] to dismiss as totally misguided the entire enterprise of Christian day school education,” to which VanDrunen responds by noting the “positive things” he has written about Christian schools as well as the fact that his own child has always attended Christian schools.[18] Although VanDrunen’s critics overstate their case, VanDrunen also contributes to the misunderstanding by cautioning Christians “not to seek a uniquely Christian way” of education, apart from the field of theology, even while also acknowledging the validity of distinctly Christian education because of the impact of worldview presuppositions on all fields of study.[19] In spite of such apparently contradictory statements, VanDrunen does embrace distinctly Christian education beyond the local church, even if he expresses more reservations than his critics.

4. Complete Separation Between The Rule Of The Logos And The Rule Of The Incarnate Son

In a matter also related to the charge of dualism, Kloosterman rejects VanDrunen’s conception of the “dual mediatorship” of Christ as both providential ruler over all creation and redemptive ruler over the church, believing that VanDrunen excessively “separate[s]” and “isolate[s]” these two rulerships of Christ in a dualistic fashion.20 While Kloosterman accepts the need to distinguish and differentiate these two rulerships, he also wants to assure they remain “unified and integrated.”[21] In actuality, VanDrunen fully agrees with Kloosterman on the need to integrate Christ’s dual rulership, distinguishing without dividing, just as Reformed theologians have done throughout history.[22] Making a distinction between either the two rulerships of Christ or the two kingdoms of his rule does not necessarily introduce a complete division or separation since most agree that the Bible’s conception of Christ’s two-fold rulership involves both distinction and integration. This illustrates further that the charge of radical dualism is a misunderstanding of VanDrunen’s position.[23]

5. Natural Law As Sufficient And Trustworthy, Independent Of Special Revelation

Critics also reject VanDrunen’s particular understanding of natural law, even while nonetheless agreeing with him concerning the existence of natural law. McIlhenny affirms its existence on the grounds that “all humans are image-bearers [with] the ability to grasp creational truths” and express “a universal moral sense.”[24] Frame concurs that sinful man does not “completely suppress” the truths of natural law, instead creating “a dynamic relation between true understanding and suppression of that truth . . . [a] paradox of [man’s] recognizing [natural law truth] while rebelling against it”—though Frame does not believe VanDrunen sufficiently acknowledges this inherent tension between recognition and suppression.[25] Similarly, Haas asserts that VanDrunen only adequately presents a positive vision of natural law, “dismiss[ing] . . . Calvin’s negative assessment.”[26] Scheuers accuses VanDrunen of making “natural law and Scripture two separate, non-overlapping, independent sources of wisdom and knowledge,” with natural law functioning as “a wholly sufficient guide for life in God’s Kingdom.”[27]

But in contradiction to these criticisms, VanDrunen explicitly agrees that “special revelation is also required in order that sinners may rightly apprehend and interpret divine revelation in creation,” since sin has produced “devastating effects . . . on unregenerate humanity.”[28] VanDrunen unequivocally rejects the idea that “unregenerate sinners can derive a true code of morality from creation” that is in any sense “infallible.”[29] VanDrunen also fully embraces both Calvin’s positive and negative assessments of natural law, along with “the consequent necessity of supernatural revelation,” Scripture “correct[ing] and clarify[ing]” our interpretation of natural law.[30] Yet, because non-Christians do not themselves acknowledge the authority of Scriptural revelation, natural law “provides a way for Christians to engage in meaningful moral conversation in the public square” beyond merely explicit apologetic and evangelistic interactions. VanDrunen qualifies the usefulness of natural law by noting that “we should not ask more of natural law than it can provide,” since there is not “any foolproof way of making persuasive natural law arguments,” as “unbelievers will often reject them (as they reject arguments from Scripture).”[31] Upon examination, the division between VanDrunen and his critics is not the result of radically different understandings of natural law.

6. Two Kingdoms Doctrine As Incompatible With Augustine’s Two Cities

One final criticism of VanDrunen’s two kingdoms view concerns its relationship to Augustine’s “two cities” doctrine. In Parler’s interpretation, “VanDrunen sees Augustine’s thought as similar to the Two Kingdoms perspective.”[32] James K. A. Smith also understands VanDrunen as claiming Augustine’s two cities as a “precursor and source for two-kingdoms theory,” with the doctrine of two kingdoms being “a faithful translation or extension of Augustine’s account of two cities,” without “a significant difference between the two.”[33] In spite of VanDrunen’s claims, both Smith and Parler agree that Augustine and VanDrunen cannot, in fact, be reconciled.[34] But Smith and Parler misunderstand VanDrunen’s position since he describes two cities and two kingdoms as “distinct, though compatible, doctrines,” with two kingdoms being neither a rejection nor modification of Augustine’s radical antithesis between the two cities but instead an effort to address a different issue—“how God exercises his rule in the world.”[35] Like Augustine, VanDrunen fully believes that “a fundamental antithesis exists between believer and unbeliever in their basic perspective and attitude toward God, morality, and eternity,” but he also believes that “alongside this antithesis God . . . ordained an element of commonality in the world.”[36] Instead of rejecting or obscuring Augustine’s two cities antithesis, VanDrunen, like Kuyper, pairs the antithesis with common grace.[37] In fact, according to VanDrunen, “in this dual reality of antithesis and commonality lies the origin of the two kingdoms.”[38] In making a distinction between ultimate, eternal antithesis and penultimate, temporary commonality, VanDrunen does not intend to imply any radical division between these two realms since “the clash of ultimate concerns among members of a society” can also lead to “irreconcilable differences on basic penultimate concerns.”[39] Though VanDrunen agrees that Christians are “dual citizens in a sense,” in another sense “our two citizenships are incommensurate” since “we belong to the spiritual kingdom as we can never again belong to the civil kingdom.”[40] VanDrunen’s two kingdoms paradigm allows him to affirm, with his critics, the antithesis of Augustine in reference to membership in one kingdom, while simultaneously affirming the common grace of Kuyper in reference to membership in the other kingdom.[41]

IV. Covenantal Framework: The Fundamental Divide Between VanDrunen And His Critics

After demonstrating that the preceding common criticisms of VanDrunen are either concerning secondary matters or are misunderstandings of his view, this article will now endeavor to show that the fundamental divide between VanDrunen and his critics is rooted in differing conceptions of the covenantal framework of Scripture. VanDrunen sees a biblical covenantal framework as “the place where a system of theology can be centered and from which it can emerge in orderly coherence and biblical fidelity,” providing “an architectonic structure that undergirds all of the various threads of revealed truth.”[42] VanDrunen then seeks to root the two kingdoms doctrine within this overarching covenantal framework of Scripture, an effort expressing the seminal influence of his former professor Meredith G. Kline, from whom he learned “to read Scripture through the lens of a vibrant covenant theology.”[43]

VanDrunen’s covenantal framework consists of five distinctions or areas of discontinuity.[44] While VanDrunen also recognizes important areas of continuity within Scripture’s covenantal structure, his particular understanding is best illustrated through an examination of these five distinctions.[45] The first distinction is between the Creation and Noahic covenants, understood as a distinction between a covenant of works and a covenant of grace.[46] The second distinction is between the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants, understood as a distinction between a common grace covenant and a special grace covenant. The third distinction is between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants (until Israel went into exile), understood as a distinction between a sojourning covenant of not-yet-realized rest and a settled covenant of already-realized rest. The fourth distinction is between the Old and New covenants, understood as a distinction between two special grace covenants in which one completely fulfills the other. The fifth distinction is between the Inaugurated New Covenant and Consummated New Covenant, understood as a distinction within the special grace covenant as already realized in the church but not yet realized in all creation.

1. Distinction Between The Creation Covenant And The Noahic Covenant

Frame identifies the foundational influence of Kline’s exegetical conclusions on VanDrunen and other advocates of a two kingdoms doctrine; Frame in fact labels them “Klineans.”[47] Frame correctly understands that Kline posits that the “cultural mandate” of the original Creation Covenant of Gen 1 is not the same as the “cultural mandate” of the Noahic Covenant of Gen 9, but Frame rejects Kline’s distinction as “misleading”—though Kline’s distinction is in many ways no different than the traditional Reformed distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.[48] But other critics of VanDrunen seem not to understand the implications of VanDrunen’s embrace of Kline’s distinction. For instance, McIlhenny interprets VanDrunen as concluding that “the cultural mandate is no longer relevant for Christians today,” while Scheuers reads VanDrunen as holding that “no legitimate cultural mandate remains.”[49] But in differentiating the Creation and Noahic covenants, VanDrunen also differentiates the two covenant mandates since “the responsibilities God has given to us (after the fall) to engage in a broad range of cultural vocations in this world must be conceived as something different from Adam’s original mandate (even if they are similar to it in important respects),” acknowledging both continuity and discontinuity between the two covenants.[50] According to the Reformed tradition, the Creation Covenant (or Covenant of Works) with Adam mandated his perfect obedience.[51] Humanity’s fall into sin makes our carrying out of this mandate impossible. Therefore, according to VanDrunen, “God does not call Christians to take up the original cultural mandate of Genesis 1:26–28 per se, but calls them to obey the cultural mandate as given in modified form to Noah in Genesis 9.”[52] This modified form is “a revised cultural mandate . . . the original cultural mandate refracted through the Noahic covenant for a fallen yet preserved world.”[53] In contrast to the Adamic Creation Covenant, this revised covenant can be labeled the Noahic Fallen Creation Covenant. God enters into this covenant “with the entire created order, including all human beings,” demonstrating that it is a universal or common covenant.[54] The Noahic Covenant can then be understood as “the formal establishment of the common kingdom,” a kingdom populated by all humanity and which “God himself established and rules.”[55] While all people, believers and unbelievers alike, are “morally accountable to God” for carrying out the revised cultural mandate of the Noahic Covenant, at the same time, it is noteworthy that with a “backdrop of great human depravity,” Gen 9 sets forth “no grand social vision.”[56] The Noahic Covenant is accommodated to sinful humanity’s inability to perfectly obey, but is in no sense “a realm of moral neutrality or human autonomy,” but is ruled by God.[57] This common kingdom encompassing all humanity and formally established in the Noahic Covenant is then the first of VanDrunen’s two kingdoms, demonstrating how his view is fundamentally rooted in a certain conception of the Bible’s covenantal structure.

2. Distinction Between The Noahic Covenant And The Abrahamic Covenant

Frame not only rejects VanDrunen’s (and Kline’s) distinction between the Creation and Noahic covenants but also their conception of the Noahic Covenant as intended strictly to preserve rather than redeem.[58] Frame’s view of the Noahic Covenant as both preservative and redemptive highlights a second crucial area of covenantal distinction which illuminates the fundamental divide between VanDrunen and his critics. For VanDrunen, the common grace Noahic Covenant contrasts with the special grace covenant which God initiates with Abraham, a special grace covenant which develops further under the Mosaic covenant and is then fulfilled in the New Covenant.[59] On the one hand, the common grace covenant is universal and temporary with the purpose of preservation; on the other hand, the special grace covenant is particularistic and eternal with the purpose of redemption.[60]

In distinguishing the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants, VanDrunen reveals the roots of the two kingdoms doctrine. According to VanDrunen, “the two kingdoms correspond to [the common grace and special grace covenants,] the means by which God in his Son exercises his twofold rule,” demonstrating that “God’s preservative and providential reign over this world . . . is distinct from his redemptive work.”[61] The mandates of each covenant are different as “the imperatives of the Noahic covenant . . . come to people not as redeemed by God but as created and preserved by him . . . not as believers but as human beings.”[62] In contrast the imperatives of the special grace covenants come to “God’s redeemed covenant people as the proper response to his special grace toward them.”[63] The resulting situation, VanDrunen argues, is:

God’s people are thus called to live under both covenants—that is, in two kingdoms. On the one hand, they respect the terms of the Noahic covenant as they pursue a variety of cultural activities in common with unbelievers. On the other hand, they embrace the terms of the Abrahamic covenant of grace as they cling to the promises of salvation and eternal life in a new creation and as they gather in worshipping communities distinguished from the unbelieving world.[64]

Such covenantal distinctions illuminate the fundamental division between VanDrunen and his critics.

3. Distinction Between The Abrahamic Covenant And The Mosaic Covenant

Another key covenantal distinction VanDrunen makes is between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants (until the exile), understood as a distinction between a sojourning covenant of not-yet-realized rest and a settled covenant of already-realized rest. When Abraham or his descendants do not possess the covenant land, they are a sojourning people looking to a future possession and rest. When Abraham’s descendants possess the land as an expression of the Mosaic Covenant, they embody a realization of the promised rest. According to VanDrunen, this distinction is illustrated in the different ways the covenant people relate to non-covenant people when sojourning versus when possessing the covenant land. When sojourning in the land, in Egypt, or in Babylon, the covenant people live in two kingdoms, sharing “common cultural space together with unbelievers in as much peace and cooperation as possible,” even while remaining “radically distinct from the world in their faith and worship.”[65] This relationship of both commonality and antithesis to those outside the covenant is illustrated in Abraham’s interaction with the occupants of the land, Israel’s living among the Egyptians, and the exiles’ responsibility in Babylon to “seek the welfare of the city . . . and pray to the Lord on its behalf” (Jer 29:7), even while simultaneously praying for its ultimate destruction (Ps 137:8–9). But when Israel possessed the land under the Mosaic Covenant, their relationship to those outside the covenant changed. VanDrunen observes, “The cultural commonality among believers and unbelievers ordained in the Noahic covenant was suspended for Israel within the borders of the Promised Land. . . . Though Israel was to show kindness to foreigners residing temporarily in Canaan . . . it was not to maintain a common cultural life with pagans in the Promised Land.”[66] Therefore, “Israel’s experience under the law of Moses in the Promised Land of Canaan was not meant to exemplify life under the two kingdoms,” illustrating the distinction between the Abrahamic sojourning covenant of not-yet-realized rest and the Mosaic settled covenant of already-realized rest.[67]

4. Distinction Between The Old Covenant And The New Covenant

The fourth important covenantal distinction VanDrunen makes is the well-chronicled distinction between the Old and New covenants. Even while seeing significant continuity between these two covenants of special grace, VanDrunen nevertheless clearly states that “believers in the present era no longer live under the Abrahamic or Mosaic administrations of the covenant of grace, but under the new covenant.”[68] The kingdom resulting from this new special grace covenant both fulfills and surpasses the special grace kingdom of the Old Testament.[69] But though the arrival of the New Covenant means the “end of the Mosaic covenant,” it does “not mean the end of the Noahic covenant.”[70] The common grace kingdom of the Noahic Covenant still continues in the present New Covenant age, as believers and unbelievers still live in mixed societies throughout the world. This two kingdoms reality helps explain why “the New Testament instructs God’s people to conduct themselves similarly to Abraham and the exiles in Babylon,” since members of the New Covenant are also “sojourners and exiles” (1 Pet 1:1, 17; 2:11) in this world, rather than being “an ethnically defined people living in one small geographical area,” as was Israel when they possessed the land under the Mosaic Covenant.[71] Therefore, members of the New Covenant in this age are to emulate Abraham the sojourner, living in two kingdoms, not Israel the conqueror, possessing the land and living in one kingdom.[72]

5. Distinction Between The Inaugurated New Covenant And The Consummated New Covenant

The fifth key distinction VanDrunen makes is between the Inaugurated and Consummated New Covenant, understood as a distinction within the special grace covenant as already realized in the church but not yet realized in all creation. While VanDrunen’s critics, along with most evangelicals today, affirm some form of “inaugurated eschatology,” the difference between the two sides is found in exactly how they understand the distinction between the New Covenant believer’s role and responsibilities in the “already” versus the “not yet.” For neo-Calvinists like McIlhenny, the “already” role and responsibilities are comprehensive, as “the Adamic human race perverts the cosmos; the Christian human race renews it,” “call[ing] back (or buy[ing] back, as in redeem[ing]) the created order to its original state as God intended” and “reclaiming God’s creation from the totalizing effects of the fall.”[73] Haas agrees that believers are “restored to” Adam’s original cultural calling.[74] In contrast, Skillen believes VanDrunen portrays life in “the age to come” as “antithetical to life in this age.”[75] Likewise, Venema describes VanDrunen’s two kingdoms as a “dualistic and incoherent” misreading of Calvin, which “sharply distinguishe[s] . . . the present and future realization of God’s redemptive purpose.”[76] Rather, Venema emphasizes that Calvin understands “Christ’s work of redemption” as one which “involves the comprehensive reordering and renewing of the entire created order,” an understanding which Venema sees VanDrunen as rejecting.[77]

In reality, the key question for VanDrunen is not whether Christ comprehensively redeems the cosmos, but when he redeems it. Though VanDrunen recognizes that neo-Calvinists fully embrace that “Christ is coming again and that only then will all things be perfectly restored,” VanDrunen also believes neo-Calvinists “tend to place rather high stock in the already manifest character of the eschatological kingdom,” including the Christian’s present role in the redemption of all creation and culture.[78] VanDrunen finds it noteworthy that many neo-Calvinists, following Dooyeweerd, portray “the Christian ground motive as creation-fall-redemption,” not typically including “the fourth category of consummation.”[79] This three-act conception, rather than a four-act conception, can create a blurring of the lines of distinction between the Inaugurated and Consummated New Covenant, particularly concerning the question of whether Christ’s redemption of all culture and the natural world begins in the inaugurated “already” or whether Christ commences this universal transformation only in the consummated “not yet.”

The question of when Christ redeems the cosmos likewise has necessary implications for the question of a Christian’s role and responsibility in the present age. VanDrunen describes neo-Calvinists as believing that “the work of bringing in the perfect realization of the eschatological kingdom on the present earth begins already in the Christian’s cultural labors here and now,” with the consummation of Christ’s return merely “the climax of the redemption process already underway rather than a unique, radical event in history.”[80] Christians are then tasked “to bring the eschatological kingdom of Christ to expression in every area of society and culture,” since “all cultural labor is kingdom work . . . aim[ing] to advance the full realization” of the kingdom by transforming “ordinary activity” into “‘kingdom service,’ which produces ‘the building materials for that new earth.’”[81] The result is the pursuit of a vision of human society which “in one way or another, manifests the eschatological kingdom of Christ in the here and now.”[82] VanDrunen labels this vision as “an eschatological burdening of cultural work,” whereas, in contrast, he himself holds that “the eschatological kingdom does not have a contemporary social expression (other than the church) nor does Scripture present a normative vision for contemporary society.”[83] Instead, VanDrunen sees “the broader cultural realm as rooted in the creation order as preserved but not redeemed”; hence, his advocacy for a two kingdoms conception.[84] VanDrunen’s distinction between the initial redemptive work of Christ (and his people) in the Inaugurated New Covenant, on the one hand, and the universal redemptive work of Christ (and his people) in the Consummated New Covenant, on the other hand, is part of the fundamental division between VanDrunen and his critics.

V. Conclusion

Although there are some differences between VanDrunen and his critics in how they interpret the Reformed tradition and how they understand issues such as natural law or the integration of commonality and antithesis, this article has identified their fundamental division as rooted in competing views of Scripture’s underlying covenantal structure. Since one’s choice of a two kingdoms or a neo-Calvinist paradigm has implications for a whole host of theological issues, including issues of Christology, anthropology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and missiology, may both sides of the debate continue this important discussion.

Notes

1. Like many theological debates, this one seems to produce as much heat as light, including a book-length refutation of the two kingdoms view by John Frame, The Escondido Theology: A Reformed Response to the Two Kingdoms Theology (Lakeland, Fla.: Whitefield Media Productions, 2011), which was later described by those he critiqued (including VanDrunen) as “utterly misrepresenting and misstating our views” (W. Robert Godfrey, “Westminster Seminary California Faculty Response to John Frame,” Westminster Seminary California Blog [February 7, 2012], http://wscal.edu/blog/entry/westminster-seminary-california-faculty-response-to-john-frame [accessed April 4, 2013]).
2. See David VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), for an overview of VanDrunen’s view as described here.
3. See David VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), for VanDrunen’s extensive evidence and argument for a two kingdoms doctrine in the first four centuries of Reformed theology. E.g., “For the better part of four centuries Reformed thinkers widely affirmed doctrines of natural law and the two kingdoms and treated them as foundational concepts for their social thought. In affirming natural law they professed belief that God had inscribed his moral law on the heart of every person, such that through the testimony of conscience all human beings have knowledge of their basic moral obligations and, in particular, have a universally accessible standard for the development of civil law. In affirming the two kingdoms doctrine, they portrayed God as ruling all human institutions and activities, but as ruling them in two fundamentally different ways. According to this doctrine, God rules the church (the spiritual kingdom) as redeemer in Jesus Christ and rules the state and all other social institutions (the civil kingdom) as creator and sustainer, and thus these two kingdoms have significantly different ends, functions, and modes of operation” (p. 1).
4. Ibid., 75-76, 305.
5. Ibid., 177.
6. “Finally, in the twentieth century, under the influence of several important though diverse thinkers, Reformed theology largely neglected and often rejected the natural law and two kingdoms doctrines and sought to give a redemptive and eschatological grounding to culture and Christians’ participation in it” (ibid., 15).
7. “My task in [Living in God’s Two Kingdoms] is not to defend everything that has ever gone by the name ‘two kingdoms,’ but to expound a two-kingdoms approach that is thoroughly grounded in the story of Scripture and biblical doctrine” (VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 14).
8. See the following essays in Kingdoms Apart: Engaging the Two Kingdoms Perspective (ed. Ryan C. McIlhenny; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2012): Cornel Venema, “The Restoration of All Things to Proper Order: An Assessment of the ‘Two Kingdoms/Natural Law’ Interpretation of Calvin’s Public Theology”; Gene Haas, “Calvin, Natural Law, and the Two Kingdoms”; John Halsey Wood, Jr., “Theologian of the Revolution: Abraham Kuyper’s Radical Proposal for Church and State”; Nelson Kloosterman, “Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms in the Thought of Herman Bavinck.”
9. David VanDrunen, “VanDrunen in the Hands of an Anxious Kloosterman: A Response to a Review of A Biblical Case for Natural Law,” Ordained Servant Online (December 2007), http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=78 (accessed April 3, 2013).
10. VanDrunen’s historical project is the result of his conviction that as “a minister in a confessionally Reformed church and a professor at a historically Reformed seminary, I have an obligation to understand well my own tradition’s reflections before offering anything like a ‘programmatic answer’ to a nearly two-thousand-year ongoing debate among thoughtful Christian people” (ibid.). But for VanDrunen, the importance of correctly understanding the Reformed tradition is secondary to correctly understanding Scripture: “I have two main goals in this article. The first is to argue that a two kingdoms doctrine is a standard part of orthodox Reformed theology. . . . The second goal is even more important, for me at least: to argue that the Reformed two kingdoms doctrine is well grounded in Scripture and can be helpfully appropriated and applied by Reformed believers today” (David VanDrunen, “The Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine: An Explanation and Defense,” The Confessional Presbyterian 8 [2012]: 177).
11. In spite of VanDrunen’s own claim in this regard, John Frame nonetheless believes that VanDrunen and other advocates of a two kingdoms doctrine (a view which Frame labels the “Escondido Theology” since many of the advocates, like VanDrunen, teach at Westminster Seminary California in Escondido) are “primarily driven by church history rather than biblical exegesis” (Frame, Escondido Theology, 11). But if one accepts VanDrunen’s own claim at face value, he and Frame actually fully agree that “Scripture, not theological tradition, must have the final word” on the question of two kingdoms theology (p. xliii). Hence, this is only an apparent, not actual, point of disagreement between VanDrunen and critics such as Frame. VanDrunen places himself firmly in the Westminster Seminary tradition which he describes as characterized by a “sacrosanct” emphasis on “rigorous exegesis,” in which “all theology . . . rightly emerges out of Scripture,” and “detailed explorations of biblical texts [are the necessary foundation] in the quest to answer theological questions” (David VanDrunen, “A System of Theology? The Centrality of Covenant for Westminster Systematics,” in The Pattern of Sound Doctrine: Systematic Theology at the Westminster Seminaries; Essays in Honor of Robert B. Strimple [ed. David VanDrunen; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2004], 203).
12. Venema, “Restoration of All Things,” 32; Timothy R. Scheuers, “Dual Citizenship, Dual Ethic? Evaluating the Two Kingdoms Perspective on the Christian in Culture,” in Kingdoms Apart, 140 n. 45.
13. James W. Skillen, foreword to Kingdoms Apart, x; Scheuers, “Dual Citizenship, Dual Ethic?,” 127, 143 (Scheuers believes that for VanDrunen, the Christian’s worldview does not affect the Christian’s “world activity” [p. 128]); Venema, “Restoration of All Things,” 17, 26. One critic portrays VanDrunen as encouraging a Christian to be “guided by his cultural spirit and imagination at certain moments of his life and by his religious spirit and imagination at others” (Steven Wedgeworth, “Two Kingdoms Critique,” Credenda Agenda 21 [June 2010], http://www.credenda.org/index.php/Theology/two-kingdoms-critique.html [accessed April 23, 2013]).
14. VanDrunen, “Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” 177.
15. VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 31.
16. Ibid., 162. Another example of VanDrunen’s rejection of radical dualism concerns his treatment of bioethics: “Christian bioethics rests on theological truths unknown to the broader world and hence cannot be substantively identical to secular bioethics” (David VanDrunen, Bioethics and the Christian Life: A Guide to Making Difficult Decisions [Wheaton: Crossway, 2009], 28). For VanDrunen, when engaging non-Christians in public discussions over bioethical issues, Christians may not “give up their Christian presuppositions or . . . set aside Scripture as their highest authority. Christians’ commitment to Scripture must define their views of human nature, suffering, death, and resurrection in ways that will always be determinative for their moral thinking” (p. 35).
17. Kloosterman, “Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms,” 81. McIlhenny also concludes that the “Two Kingdoms side may have a hard time talking about Christian learning” or “offering a rationale for” the existence and unique mission of Christian colleges (Ryan C. McIlhenny, “Introduction: In Defense of Neo-Calvinism,” in Kingdoms Apart, xxxviii; McIlhenny, “Christian Witness As Redeemed Culture,” in Kingdoms Apart, 268).
18. David M. VanDrunen, “Rejoinder to Dr. Carl Zylstra, President of Dordt College,” Westminster Seminary California Blog (January 25, 2012), https://www.wscal.edu/blog/entry/3911 (accessed April 4, 2013).
19. VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 170, 179-86. VanDrunen also recognizes that presuppositions in education have more influence in some disciplines compared to others, suggesting that the effects of differing presuppositions “might be felt more intensely in the humanities, which deal more directly and regularly with the evaluation of human conduct and the interpretation of life’s meaning than do, for instance, the natural sciences” (pp. 181-82).
20. Nelson D. Kloosterman, Peering into a Lawyer’s Brief: An Extended Examination of David VanDrunen’s Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms (n.p., 2012), 73. Online: http://worldviewresourcesinternational.com/kloosterman/DVDreviewNL2K.pdf (accessed February 26, 2015).
21. Ibid., 76.
22. VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 75-76, 176-83, 250-55, 301-15.
23. “Where Reformed theology sees distinctions without separation, John [Frame in Escondido Theology] often seems to press a false choice. If you distinguish our heavenly and temporal citizenship, then he suspects that you separate them, denying the latter” (Michael Horton, “A Response to John Frame’s The Escondido Theology,” Out of the Horse’s Mouth: The White Horse Inn Blog [February 10, 2012], https://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/entry/book-review/2012/02/10/a-response-to-john-frames-the-escondido-theology [accessed April 23, 2013]). VanDrunen cautions that “dualism-phobia must not override our ability to make clear and necessary distinctions” (VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 26). Instead, VanDrunen seeks to make the proper and careful theological distinctions for which he sees scriptural warrant, distinctions without any implied divisions. For VanDrunen, many such distinctions are “absolutely essential to maintaining orthodox doctrine. . . . Making good distinctions is a crucial mark of good theology” (VanDrunen, “Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” 190).
24. McIlhenny, “Introduction,” xxxiii.
25. Frame, Escondido Theology, 128, 131.
26. Haas, “Calvin, Natural Law, and the Two Kingdoms,” 62. Waddington understands VanDrunen to propose natural law as “function(ing) on its own in isolation from special revelation . . . hermetically sealed” and “disconnected” from special grace in a “standalone common grace realm,” with both realms running on “parallel and non-intersecting tracks” in a manner closely resembling the “nature/grace dichotomy” of Medieval Roman Catholicism, seemingly in contrast with the view of the Reformers who “understood the fall to result in a corrupted human nature” (Jeffrey C. Waddington, “Duplex in Homine Regimen: A Response to David VanDrunen’s ‘The Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine: An Explanation and Defense,’” The Confessional Presbyterian 8 [2012]: 193-94).
27. Scheuers, “Dual Citizenship, Dual Ethic?,” 134, 135.
28. VanDrunen, “VanDrunen in the Hands.”
29. Ibid.
30. VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 105; David M. VanDrunen, “Two Kingdoms and Moral Standards,” Westminster Seminary California Blog (February 28, 2011), http://wscal.edu/blog/entry/3315 (accessed April 4, 2013).
31. VanDrunen, Bioethics and the Christian Life, 36. According to VanDrunen, “Most every unbeliever, in fact, accepts the truth of at least some aspects of the natural law. True, they do not accept it for what it really is, the revelation of the living and triune God. But most people, when pressed, would admit that acts such as murder, stealing, and lying are immoral, and they themselves generally avoid such actions. Most people would also claim that law and government exist to protect people against those who would kill, rob, or defraud them. The fact that most unbelievers, though refusing to worship the true God, still to some significant extent acknowledge and live by the truth of his law as it is known by nature is something for which Christians can be very grateful. Because of this, societies generally retain some degree of order and justice” (David VanDrunen, “Natural Law and Christians in the Public Square,” Modern Reformation 15 [2006], http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var2=93 [accessed April 3, 2013]).
32. Branson Parler, “Two Cities or Two Kingdoms? The Importance of the Ultimate in Reformed Social Thought,” in Kingdoms Apart, 185.
33. James K. A. Smith, “Reforming Public Theology: Two Kingdoms, or Two Cities?,” CTJ 47 (2012): 125.
34. Ibid., 128; Parler, “Two Cities or Two Kingdoms?,” 195.
35. VanDrunen, “Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” 178. VanDrunen argues that he is following Calvin in this regard: “While Calvin, like Augustine, certainly believed in the spiritual antithesis between God and Satan and between believers and unbelievers, he was not attempting to express this distinction in his two kingdoms doctrine. Calvin’s two kingdoms were not the kingdoms of God and Satan; instead, God rules both kingdoms—albeit in different ways—and believers belong to both simultaneously” (David VanDrunen, “The Two Kingdoms: A Reassessment of the Transformationist Calvin,” CTJ 40 [2005]: 254). “Calvin’s doctrine of two kingdoms was not Augustine’s doctrine of two cities. Both of Calvin’s two kingdoms are God’s, but are ruled by him in distinctive ways. Each has significantly positive roles to play for life in the world. Christians are members of both kingdoms during their earthly lives. Calvin perceived a difference between these kingdoms but not a fundamental antithesis. The antithesis lay elsewhere” (VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 71).
36. VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 29.
37. Another expression of the Augustinian antithesis between believers and unbelievers is the apologetics approach of Cornelius Van Til—an approach which VanDrunen embraces alongside his recognition of cultural commonality between believers and unbelievers. “I hold to a Van Tillian, presuppositional view of apologetics. . . . I see no reason why one cannot be Van Tillian in apologetics and think that natural law should have an important role to play in the Christian’s daily cultural work. . . . But apologetic confrontation with unbelieving thought is not the only kind of interaction that Christians have with unbelievers. Christians are called not only to break down every pretension that sets itself up against Christ (2 Cor. 10:5) but also to live lives in common with unbelievers in a range of cultural activities. . . . There is a place for a believing musician to explain to an unbelieving musician that music is meaningless unless the triune God exists, but when they are rehearsing together in the community orchestra such a Van Tillian apologetic confrontation would be highly inappropriate—the task at that time is cooperation at a common cultural task. . . . To try to put it briefly, we have different sorts of encounters with unbelievers at different times” (VanDrunen, “VanDrunen in the Hands”).
38. Ibid.
39. David VanDrunen, “The Importance of the Penultimate: Reformed Social Thought and the Contemporary Critiques of the Liberal Society,” Journal of Markets and Morality 9 (2006): 237-38.
40. David VanDrunen, “The Two Kingdoms and the Ordo Salutis: Life Beyond Judgment and the Question of the Dual Ethic,” WTJ 70 (2008): 222.
41. “Common grace is a doctrine in Kuyper’s theology that finds no exact precedent in the Reformed tradition. Although earlier Reformed theologians spoke of God’s sustaining the world in general and his preservation and blessing of civil society in particular, they did not use common grace as a distinct and organizing category” (David VanDrunen, “Abraham Kuyper and the Reformed Natural Law and Two Kingdoms Traditions,” CTJ 42 [2007]: 299).
42. VanDrunen, “A System of Theology?,” 196, 209. Gentry and Wellum argue similarly that “correctly ‘putting together’ the biblical covenants is central to the doing of biblical and systematic theology and thus to the theological conclusions we draw from Scripture in many doctrinal areas” (Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants [Wheaton: Crossway, 2012], 23).
43. VanDrunen, “Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” 181. Regarding the terminology of “two kingdoms,” Sheuers questions, with some validity, whether Scripture ever speaks of two “kingdoms” in the way that VanDrunen proposes (Sheuers, “Dual Citizenship, Dual Ethic?,” 134 n. 28). In many respects, VanDrunen is merely following the lead of Calvin and the Reformed tradition in talking in terms of two “kingdoms.” Nonetheless, for the sake of clarity, perhaps a better phrase to describe VanDrunen’s view would be “One Kingdom Administered through Two Covenants”—though this phrase might also communicate unintended dispensational connotations. See David VanDrunen, “Calvin, Kuyper, and ‘Christian Culture,’” in Always Reformed: Essays in Honor of W. Robert Godfrey (ed. R. Scott Clark and Joel E. Kim; Escondido, Calif.: Westminster Seminary California, 2010), 135; also VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 412: “I will argue that [Kline’s] particular contribution to the development of the Reformed natural law and two kingdoms tradition may be his more deeply rooting it in the covenant theology that has long been a distinguishing mark of Reformed theology.”
44. Gentry and Wellum agree that “do[ing] justice to the biblical distinctions between the covenants . . . lead[s] us to affirm some crucial covenantal discontinuities—all of which have massive implications in many areas” (Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 71). In the same way, the covenantal discontinuities proposed by VanDrunen have significant implications, not the least of which is the necessity of a two kingdoms doctrine.
45. Another covenantal distinction important for VanDrunen and the Reformed tradition is the eternal covenant of redemption or pactum salutis, “one of the most important and widely taught aspects of Reformed covenant theology and a cornerstone of its soteriology” (David VanDrunen and R. Scott Clark, “The Covenant before the Covenants,” in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry: Essays by the Faculty of Westminster Seminary California [ed. R. Scott Clark; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2007], 167). VanDrunen defines the pactum salutis as “a pretemporal, intratrinitarian agreement between the Father and Son, in which the Father promises to redeem an elect people. In turn, the Son volunteers to earn the salvation of his people by becoming incarnate (the Spirit having prepared a body for him), by acting as the surety . . . of the covenant of grace for and as mediator of the covenant of grace to the elect. In his active and passive obedience, Christ fulfills the conditions of the pactum salutis and fulfills his guarantee . . . ratifying the Father’s promise, because of which the Father rewards the Son’s obedience with the salvation of the elect. And because of this, the Holy Spirit applies the Son’s work to his people through the means of grace” (p. 168). While the pactum salutis is no doubt vital within the Reformed system, for the purposes of this article it will not be identified as a fundamental difference between VanDrunen and his critics, though the understanding of the passive and active obedience of Christ in the pactum salutis is also an important aspect of the distinction between the Creation Covenant of works and the later covenants of grace.
46. Though the existence of a Creation Covenant has been long debated, for one argument for its existence, see Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 177-221. For the purposes of this article, the Creation Covenant will be presupposed.
47. Frame, Escondido Theology, 152.
48. Ibid., 173. See Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Overland Park, Kans.: Two Age Press, 2000), for Kline’s detailed proposal.
49. McIlhenny, “Introduction,” xxi-xxii; Scheuers, “Dual Citizenship, Dual Ethic?,” 129 n. 9.
50. VanDrunen, “Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” 183. Gentry and Wellum agree with this identification of continuity and discontinuity between the Creation and Noahic covenant mandates. “In Genesis 9:1-7 God blesses Noah and commissions him as a new Adam, giving him Adam’s mandate, modified somewhat to suit the circumstances of a fallen world” (Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 165).
51. Gentry and Wellum believe that all the biblical covenants require perfect obedience as they all “demand an obedient partner (son). This is evident with Adam as commands and responsibilities are given to him and the expectation is that he will respond perfectly. Furthermore, as the covenants unfold, the same emphasis is in all of them. Complete obedience and devotion are demanded from the covenant mediators and the people; God demands and deserves nothing less. In this sense, there is a conditional/bilateral element to all the covenants. It is this latter emphasis on God’s demand of complete obedience from his creatures which is crucial in establishing the grounding to the active obedience of Christ” (Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 666). Nonetheless, before the fall, mankind’s complete obedience was at least a possibility, whereas after the fall, “the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Gen 8:21), demonstrating the radical distinction between the settings, expectations, and purposes of the Creation and Noahic covenants. Another helpful way to understand the distinction between the mandate of mankind before and after the fall are the categories “structure” and “direction,” distinguishing man’s ontological identity as the image of God (“structure”) from man’s mal/functioning as the image (“direction”). “Structure refers to the order of creation, to the constant creational constitution of any thing, what makes it the thing or entity that it is. Structure is anchored in the law of creation, the creational decree of God that constitutes the nature of different kinds of creatures. It designates a reality that the philosophical tradition of the West has often referred to by such words as substance, essence, and nature. Direction, by contrast, designates the order of sin and redemption, the distortion or perversion of creation through the fall on the one hand and the redemption and restoration of creation in Christ on the other. Anything in creation can be directed either toward or away from God—that is, directed either in obedience or disobedience to his law” (Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview [2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005], 59). Henry Van Til earlier used the same categories: “In the structure of his creaturehood, man remained the same, but functionally he departed from his original rectitude. The direction of his life was changed; he became derailed as to his true goal in life; he no longer sought God as his chief joy” (Henry R. Van Til, The Calvinistic Concept of Culture [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1959], 57). This distinction between structure and direction is also similar to a distinction Kline makes between mankind’s “official glory” (structure) and “ethical glory” (direction) (Meredith G. Kline, “Creation in the Image of the Glory-Spirit,” WTJ 29 [1976/77]: 269). How are these categories helpful in understanding the discontinuity between the Creation and Noahic covenants? Before the fall, mankind was expected and able to obey perfectly in terms of both structure and direction. After the fall, mankind could at best obey in a structural sense, always directionally falling short. The Noahic Covenant then is primarily concerned with mankind’s structural obedience to the cultural mandate rather than his directional obedience. This also illustrates the distinction between believers and unbelievers, as believers will express imperfectly some measure of directional obedience. So, even in carrying out the common cultural task, there will be a difference between believers and unbelievers. VanDrunen refers to this difference as the distinction between “objective standards” and “subjective motivations” in carrying out the cultural mandate. While believers and unbelievers may share common “objective standards” for the cultural task, they will differ in their “subjective motivations,” two categories, in some sense, corresponding to both the commonality and the antithesis between believers and unbelievers (VanDrunen, “Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” 189).
52. VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 164.
53. VanDrunen, “Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” 184.
54. David VanDrunen, “The Two Kingdoms and the Social Order: Political and Legal Theory in Light of God’s Covenant with Noah,” Journal of Markets and Morality 14 (2011): 446.
55. VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 81.
56. Ibid., 165; VanDrunen, “Importance of the Penultimate,” 240.
57. VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 81.
58. Frame, Escondido Theology, 137. VanDrunen states that Kline’s identification of the Noahic Covenant as “a distinct covenant of common grace” is “in some respects original” (VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 413), while in other respects is merely following “a long line of Reformed theologians who interpret the Noahic covenant as a covenant of common grace rather than of special, saving grace,” a line including modern proponents such as Kuyper, Bavinck, and Vos (David VanDrunen, “Bearing Sword in the State, Turning Cheek in the Church: A Reformed Two-Kingdoms Interpretation of Matthew 5:38-42, ” Them 34 [2009]: 329 n. 19).
59. Gentry and Wellum seem to allude to a similar conception: “It is in light of the Fall that the Old Testament makes an important distinction between the sovereignty and rule of God over the entire creation and the coming of his saving reign in the context of a rebellious creation to make all things right” (Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 593).
60. VanDrunen, “Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” 183-84.
61. Ibid., 183; VanDrunen, “Two Kingdoms and the Social Order,” 446. According to Gentry and Wellum, “The covenant made with Noah creates a firm stage of history where God can work out his plan for rescuing his fallen world,” identifying the Noahic covenant as a gracious covenant with all humanity by which “the earth is maintained and preserved in spite of the human situation,” providing a backdrop for God to save his elect from among all humanity as well as ultimately to redeem creation itself (Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 169). The Noahic Covenant itself is not redemptive, but it does play a role in God’s redemptive purposes.
62. VanDrunen, “Two Kingdoms and the Social Order,” 448.
63. Ibid., 451.
64. VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 29.
65. VanDrunen, “Importance of the Penultimate,” 233.
66. VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 89.
67. Ibid.
68. VanDrunen, “Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” 186-87.
69. VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 107.
70. Ibid., 118, 119. On one hand, Gentry and Wellum seem to concur: “The covenant with Noah is in effect today. . . . There is no evidence anywhere in the completed canon of Scripture as a whole that this covenant has been annulled or superseded,” and “in the church, believers experience the blessings of the new covenant. In what way, however, does the new covenant ‘administer’ the unregenerate? The only blessings the unregenerate receive are the blessings given in the covenant with creation to all humans alike” (Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 171, 512). On the other hand, they state that “the new covenant supersedes all the previous covenants in redemptive-history” with the result that “we are no longer under those previous covenants as covenants” (pp. 604, 605). This unresolved tension within Gentry and Wellum’s proposal can be solved by clearly adopting a two kingdoms structure which understands all the redemptive, special grace covenants as fulfilled in the Inaugurated New Covenant while the Noahic common grace covenant is still in effect, only ultimately fulfilled in the Consummated New Covenant, when Christ redeems all culture and nature. Therefore, believers in this age are still under the Noahic Covenant.
71. VanDrunen, Bioethics and the Christian Life, 32.
72. VanDrunen also understands Israel’s life in the land to be divinely intended as a “recapitulation” of Adam’s life in the Garden, but that this recapitulation was “unique to Mosaic-era Israel in comparison to other administrations of the covenant of grace,” since this recapitulation is a position that “the patriarchs under the Abrahamic covenant and Christians under the new covenant did not and do not experience” (David VanDrunen, “Israel’s Recapitulation of Adam’s Probation under the Law of Moses,” WTJ 73 [2011], 320). While Israel’s recapitulation was a failure, Christ in his first coming took up the Adamic role and perfectly fulfilled it as the “last Adam,” illustrating that the position of New Covenant believers is not fundamentally one of resuming Adam’s original role and responsibilities but one of trusting in Christ’s perfect work as the “last Adam.” Not recognizing this distinction between Christ’s role as the “last Adam” versus the role of New Covenant believers called to trust in the work of the “last Adam” rather than resuming the work of the “first Adam” is, according to VanDrunen, “perhaps the fatal flaw of neo-Calvinism” (VanDrunen, “Calvin, Kuyper, and ‘Christian Culture,’” 148). Gentry and Wellum also seem to recognize the uniqueness of the Israelite Covenant as a temporary picture anticipating the later work of Christ as “in God’s overall plan the Mosaic law-covenant should be viewed as more of a parenthesis or something temporary, leading us to what the old covenant was ultimately pointing forward to, namely, the dawning of the new covenant in Christ” (Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 99). Further illustrating the temporary uniqueness of the Israelite Covenant, Gentry and Wellum also observe that “the term ‘everlasting covenant’ occurs sixteen times in the Old Testament: two times of the covenant with Noah (Gen. 9:16a; Isa. 24:5), four times of the covenant with Abraham (Gen. 17:7, 19; Ps. 105:10; 1 Chron. 16:17), once of the covenant with David (2 Sam. 23:5; cf. 2 Chron. 13:5), six times of the new covenant (Isa. 55:3; 61:8; Jer. 32:40; 50:5; Ezek. 16:60; 37:26), and three times of covenant signs (Gen. 17:13; Ex. 31:16; Lev. 24:8). Nowhere in the Old Testament is the Israelite covenant at Sinai called an everlasting or permanent covenant” (pp. 475-76).
73. McIlhenny, “Introduction,” xxiv, xxvi, xxviii.
74. Haas, Calvin, Natural Law, and the Two Kingdoms, 63.
75. Skillen, “Foreword,” x.
76. Venema, “Restoration of All Things,” 28, 26.
77. Ibid., 27.
78. VanDrunen, “Two Kingdoms: A Reassessment of the Transformationist Calvin,” 252.
79. VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 353; VanDrunen, “Two Kingdoms: A Reassessment of the Transformationist Calvin,” 252.
80. VanDrunen, “Two Kingdoms: A Reassessment of the Transformationist Calvin,” 252.
81. VanDrunen, “Importance of the Penultimate,” 225; VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 19.
82. VanDrunen, “Importance of the Penultimate,” 224.
83. VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 384; VanDrunen, “Importance of the Penultimate,” 235.
84. VanDrunen, “Abraham Kuyper and the Reformed Natural Law,” 284.