WTJ 77 (2015): 15-33

T H E KEYS ™ T H E T W O K IN G D O M S:
C O V E N A N T A L E R A M E W O R K A S T H E F U N D A M E N T A L D IV ID E
R F T W E E N V ^ N D R U N E N A N D H IS C R IT IC S

J o h n W in d

I. Introduction

h e debate within R eform ed circles between a “two k ingdom s” view

and a neo-Calvinist or “on e kingdom ” view is on e recent expression
o f the ongoing debate over the relationship between Christianity and
cultured In this article I will focus on the writings o f on e advocate o f the two
kingdom s position, David VanDrunen, professor o f systematic theology and
Christian ethics at Westminster Seminary California. I will first exam ine som e
com m on criticisms o f VanDrunen, dem onstrating that these differences be-
tween VanDrunen and his critics are either on secondary matters or are mainly
misunderstandings rather than significant differences. I will then argue that the
fundam ental divide between VanDrunen and his critics is their differing con-
ceptions o f the covenantal framework o f Scripture. 1 will attempt to clarify this,
at times, contentious debate, as well as, hopefully, to further our understanding
o f foe covenantal framework o f Scripture.

II. Sum m ary ofV an D ru n en s Two K ingdom s D octñne

V anD runen’s basic argum ent is that Scripture reveals God as ruling all
creation as king, but that his rule is administered by means o f two distinct cov-
enants that establish two different kingdoms.^ The members o f on e kingdom

John Wind is a Ph.D. student at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. This article is a
revised version ofa paper he presented at the annual meeting ofthe Evangelical Theological Society held in
Baltimore, Md., November 19-21, 2013.
1 Like many theological debates, this one seems to produce as much heat as light, including a
book-length refutation ofthe two kingdoms view by^hn Frame, TheEscondido Theology: A Reformed
Response ، ٠ the Two Kingdoms Theology (Lakeland, Fla.: Whitefield Media Froductions, 2011), which
was later described by those he cridqued (including VanDrunen) as “utterly misrepresenting and
misstating our views” (W. Robert Godfrey, “Westminster Seminary California Faculty Response
tolohn Frame,” Westminster Seminary California Blog [February 7, 2012], http://wscal.edu/blog/
entry/westminster-seminary-califomia-faculty-response-to-john-frame [accessed April 4, 2013]).
2 See David VanDrunen, Livingin God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Visionfor Christianity and Culture
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), for an overview of VanDrunen’s ^ew as described here.

15
16 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

consist o f all humanity— both believers and n b e lie v e r s -e n ]o y in g the benefits

o f G od’s gracious rule expressed in general providence and preservation, tern-
poral blessings shared by all p eop le commonly. This kingdom is a com m on
grace kingdom adm inistered through the N oahic Covenant established by
God with all humanity as revealed in Gen ‫ و‬. God governs this com m on grace
kingdom by m eans o f general revelation and the natural law which is written
on every hum an heart by virtue o f their creation in the im age o f God, a law
which, though suppressed to varying degrees by sinful humanity, is nonetheless
the com m on point o f moral reference between all people, w hether believers
or unbelievers, living together vrithin broader society.
T he m em bers o f the secon d kingdom consist only o f true believers who
are in Christ, having experienced new birth by the Holy spirit, en]oying the
benefits o f G od’s gracious rule expressed in salvation and in the granting o f
eternal blessing and life. Believers are therefore m em bers o f both kingdoms
s i^ t a n e o u s ly . This second kingdom is a special grace kingdom administered
at on e 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 m eans o f the special revelation o f Scripture,
which, though ‫؛‬mthoritative for all people, is not accepted as authoritative by
non-Christians and therefore can only function as the com m on point o f moral
reference and doctrinal truth within the special grace kingdom o f professed
believers rather than within the com m on grace kingdom in which believers
and unbelievers are mixed.
T hough VanDrunen believes this riew best represents the data o f Scripture,
a significant part o f his academ ic pro]ect has also b een to dem onstrate that
the Reform ed tradition for its first four hundred years taught various versions
o f a two kingdoms doctrine.^ VanDrunen argues that o n e key aspect o f earlier
Reformed two kingdoms views was an understanding o f “the two mediatorships
o f the Son o f God, over creation and redem ption respectively,” a com m on doc-
trine within Reform ed theology from Calvin to Kuyper.^ This doctrine taught

3 See David VanDrunen, NaturalLaw cmdthe TwoKingdoms A Study in the Development ofReformed
Social Thought (Grand Ra^ds Eerdmans, 2010), for VanDrunen’s extenswe evidence and argument
for a two kingdoms doctrine in the first four centunes of Reformed theology E g , “For foe 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 msenbed his moral law on foe 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 foe development of civil
law In affirming foe 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 foe church (foe spiritual kingdom) as redeemer in jesus Christ and rules foe state and all
other social institutions (foe 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, 30 ‫ة‬
 THE KEYS TO THE TWO KINGDOMS 17

that “Christ rul€S the on e kingdom as eternal God, as the agent o f creation
and proYidence, and over all creatnres. Christ rnles the other kingdom as the
incarnate God-man, as the agent o f redem ption, and OYer the church.”^ Van-
Drunen posits that during the twentieth century. Reformed theology rejected
this traditional two kingdoms doctrine and embraced a riew o f Christianity and
culture that m ight be described as a one kingdom riew.^ Yet, while VanDrunen
does give detailed attention to foe systematic conclusions ofhistoric Reformed
theology, he ultimately seeks to argue for his version o f the two kingdoms doc-
trine on foe basis o f exegesis and biblical theology and not merely in either
deference or opposition to the claims o f earlier theologians.*

III. VanD runen’s C ritics'M ain Points o f Contention

‫ أ‬. Misreading of the Reformed Tradition

O ne significant critique o f VanDrunen is that he has misread the Reformed

theological tradition, misunderstanding the Yiews o f key figures such as Calrin,
Kuyper, and Bavinck.8 It is beyond foe scope o f this article to referee these
historical debates, and foe argum ent o f this article does not d ep en d upon
which side in the end has foe m ore correct grasp o f exactly how these Re-
form ed forebears conceiYed o f a two kingdom s doctrine. Still, V anDrunen’s
historiographical research seems, at a minimum, to establish a legitimate com-
patibility between som e conception o f a two kingdoms doctrine and historic
Reformed theology. Even so, VanDrunen clarifies that his historical argum ent
is “not m eant 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 chieflong-term concern is not historical, but the constructive
developm ent o f a biblically, theologically, and ethically sound approach to foe
Christian’s lifo in foe broader culture.’^ Eor VanDrunen, the question o f what

5 Ibid., 177.
6 “Finally, in the n^entieth eentury, under the influence of several important though diverse
thinkers. Reformed theology largely neglected and often rejected the natural law and two king-
doms doctrines and sought to give a redemptive and eschatological grounding to culture and
^ r ilia n S 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.
Mcllhenny; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian 8c Reformed, 2012): Cornel Venema, “The Restoration
of All Things to Proper Grder: An Assessment of the ‘Two Kingdoms/Natural Eaw’ Interpretation of
Calvin’s Public Theofo^‫ ;”׳‬Gene Haas, “Calvin, Natural Law, and foe Two Kingdoms”;john Halsey
Woodjr., “Theolo^an of foe Revolution: Abraham Kuyper’s Radical Proposal for Church and State”;
Nelson Kloosterman, “Natural Law and foe Two Kingdoms in the Thought of Herman Bavinck.”
9 Darid VanDrunen, “VanDrunen in the Hands of an Anxious Kloosterman: A Response to a
Review of A Biblical Casefor Natural Law’’ Ordained Servant Online (December 2007), http://www.
o^.org/os.html?article_‫؛‬d=78 (accessed April 3, 2013).
18 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

Calvin or Kuyper believed is important yet secondary to the primary g e s t io n

o f what Scripture teaches, an order o f priority that VanDrunen’s critics would
no doubt affirm.10 Therefore, though ^ n D r u n e n and his critics are somewhat
divided in their interpretations o f the Reform ed tradition, their m ore funda-
m ental dirision is related to their interpretation o f Scripture.”

2. Restriction ofthe Christian Worldview to Institutional Church Life

While varying interpretations o f the Reformed tradition represent real, but

secondary differences between VanDrunen and his critics, other criticisms o f
VanDrunen prove to be ^ u n d e r sta n d in g s ofh is position rather than points o f
significant disagreement between the two rides. Am^jor criticism ofVanDrunen
is that his view restricts the expression o fth e Christian worldview to foe sphere o f
tire institutional church. Critics claim VanDrunen teaches that when Christians
participate in broader society, they should not use the bible as their norm o f
personal conduct since it is not relevant to public moral discussion but only
to “foe realm o fth e church,” a radically dualistic conception o fth e Christian
life.^ Therefore, Christian engagem entw ith culture should notbe “(hstinctively
Christian” nor carried out under tire openly acknowledged “sovereign rule o f
Jesus Christ” since foe ciril kingdom is “f o ^ l y distinguished” from foe church,

10 VanDrunen’s histoncal project IS the result of lus conviction that as “a minister m a confes-
sionally Reformed church and a professor at a histoncally 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, die importance ofcorrecdy understanding foe 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 doctnne IS a standard part of orthodox Reformed theology The
second goal IS even more important, for me at least to argue that die Reformed two kingdoms
doctrine IS well grounded m 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 ofVanDrunen’s own claim in this regard, John Frame nonetheless believes that Van-
Drunen and other advocates ofa two kingdoms doctrine (a view which Frame labels foe “Escondido
Theology” since many ofthe advocates, like VanDrunen, teach at Westminster Seminary California
m Escondido) are “pnmanly dnven by church history rather than biblical exegesis” (Frame, Escon-
‫ س‬Theology, 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 foe final word” on foe ‫ ؟‬uestion of
two kingdoms theology (p xlm) Hence, this IS only an apparent, not actual, point of disagreement
between VanDrunen and critics such as Frame VanDrunen places himself firmly in foe 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
o^ibhcal texts [are foe necessity foundation] m foe ‫ ؟‬uest to answer theological ،questions” (David
VanDrunen, “A System ofTheofogy^ The Centrality of Covenant for Westminster Systematics,” in
The Pattern ofSoundDoctnne Systematic Theology at the WestminsterSeminanes, Essays in HonorofRobert
B Stnmple [ed David VanDrunen, Phillipsburg, NJ Presbyterian 8c Reformed, 2004], 203)
12 Venema, “Restoration of All Things,” 32, Timothy R. Scheuers, “Dual Citizenship, Dual Ethic‫؟‬
Evaluating foe Two Kingdoms Perspective on foe Christian m Culture,” m Kingdoms Apart, 140 n 45
 THE KEYS TO THE TWO KINGDOMS 19

“all human life and conduct” di^ded into “two h e c t i c a l l y separated domains
or realms,” necessarily leading to “a compartmentalized Ilfo.”13
Contrary to these claims, VanDrunen rejects the accusation that a two king-
doms riew “compromises G od’s reign OYer all things and discourages Christians
from energetic engagem ent in their earthly vocations.”** VanDrunen does be-
lieYe Scripture addresses matters such as education, work, and politics, “thus
p rovid in g] Christians with a proper perspective on them and clear boundaries
for participating in them .”^ In contrast to the radical dualism o f which he is
accused, VanDrunen states u n e‫ ؟‬uivocally, “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 o f Christ,” showing that
VanDrunen agrees with his critics that Christians ‫ ك‬/0‫ ﺳ ﺂﺀ‬integrate their church
life with their public life.*e

3. Rejection ofChristian Education

Related to the charge o f dualism, critics also charge VanDrunen with denying
the n eed for distinctively “Christian” education outside o f the local church.
Kloosterman believes the neo-Calvinist position undergirds the m odern, Re-
formed, Christian school m ovem ent, implying the incompatibility between foe
two kingdoms position and a vital vision for Christian education V Zylstra goes
so far as to claim that VanDrunen “intend[s] to dismiss as totally m isguided
the entire enterprise o f Christian day school education,” to which VanDrunen
responds by n otin g foe “positive th in gs” he has written about Christian

13James w. Skillen, foreword to Kingdoms Apart, x; Seheuers, “Dual Citizenship, Dual Ethic?,”
127, 143 (Seheuers 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 he “guided by his cultural spirit and imagina-
tion at certain moments of his life and by his religious spirit and imagination at others” (Steven
Wedgeworth, “Two Kingdoms Critique,” Credenda Agenda 21 [June 2616], ht^/ri^w .credenda.
o r g /in d e x .^ ^ ^ O o ^ /^ to n g d o m s ^ it iq u e .h t m l [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 ofVanDrunen’s re]ection of radical dualism concerns his treat-
ment 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 ، ٠Making 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 o r ... set aside Scripture as their highest authority.
Christians’ commitment to Scripture must define their riews 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. Mcllhenny 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 ofChristian colleges (Ryan c. Mcllhenny, “Introduction: In
Defense ofNeo-Calvinism,” in Kingdoms Apart, xxxviii; Mcllhenny, “Christian Witness As Redeemed
Culture,” in Kingdoms Apart, 268).
20 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

schools as well as the fact that his own child has always attended Christian
schools.^ Although VanDrunen’s critics overstate their case, VanDrunen also
contributes to the m isunderstanding by cautioning Christians “n ot to seek a
uniquely Christian way” o f education, apart from the field o f theology, even
while also acknowledging the validity o f distinctly Christian education because
o f the impact o f worldview presuppositions on all fields o f study.*‫ ؟‬In spite o f
such apparently contradictory statements, VanDrunen does embrace distinctly
Christian education beyond the local church, even ifh e expresses more reserva-
tions than his critics.

A. Complete Separation Between the Rule of the Logos and the Rule of the Incarnate Son

In a matter also related to the charge o f dualism, Kloosterman rejects Van-

D runen’s conception o f the “dual m ediatorship” o f Christas both proridential
ruler over all creation and redemptive ruler over the church, believing that Van-
Drunen excessively “separate [s] ” and “isolate [s] ” these two rulerships o f Christ
in a dualistic fashion.^‫ ؟‬W hile Kloosterman accepts the need to distinguish and
differentiate these two rulerships, he also wants to assure they remain “unified
and imegrated.”^ In actuality, VanDrunen fully agrees with Kloosterman on the
n eed to integrate Christ’s dual ralership, distinguishing without diriding,just
as Reform ed theologians have d one throughout history . ‫ص‬Making a distinction
between either foe two rulerships o f Christ or foe two kingdom s o f his role
does not necessarily introduce a com plete division or separation since m ost
agree that the B ible’s con ception o f Christ’s two-fold rulership involves both
distinction and integration. This illustrates further that foe charge o f radical
dualism is a misunderstanding o f V anDronen’s position.^‫؟؛‬

18 David M VanDrunen, “Rejoinder to ‫ آ ه‬Carl Zylstra, ?resident of Dordt College,” Westminster

Seminary California Blog (January 25, 2012), https //wwwwscal edu/b ln g/enl^/3911 (aeeessed
Apnl 4, 2013)
‫ر؛ ا‬VanDrunen, Living in Gods Two Kingdoms, 170, 170-86 VanDrunen also recognizes that pre-
suppositions in education have more influence in some disciplines compared to others, suggesting
that the effects of differing presuppositions “might he felt more intensely m the humanities, which
deal more direcdy 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, Peennginto a Lawyer’s Brief An Extended Examination ofDavid ‫ ﺳ ﺞ‬، ‫־‬
nen’s Natural Law and the. Tzvo Kingdoms (n p , 2012), 73 Online http //wrirldviewresourcesinter-
national com/kloosterman/DVDrev1ewNL2K.pdf (accessed February 26, 2015)
2 Ibid,
‫ل‬ 76
22 VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 75-76,176-83, 250-55, 301-15
23 “^ e r e Reformed theology sees distinctions without separation, John [Erame in Escondido
Theology] often seems to press a false choice If you distinguish our heavenly and temporal citizen-
ship, then he suspects that you separate them, denying foe latter” (Michael Horton, “A Response to
John Frame’s The Escondido Theology’’ Out of the Horse’s Mouth The White Horse Lnn Blog [February 10,
2012], https //wwwwhitehorseinn or^ blog/e^ /book -rew ew /2012/()^
frames-the^scondidotheofogy [accessed Apnl 23,2013]) VanDrunen cautions that “dualism-pho-
bia must not override our ability to make clear and necessary distinctions” (VanDrunen, Living
 THE KEYS ΤΟ THE TWO KINGDOMS 21

5. Natural Law As Sufficient and Trustworthy, Independent of special Revelation

Critics also reject VanDrunen’s a rtic u la r understanding o f natural law, even

while nonetheless agreeing with him concerning the existence o f natural law.
M cllhenny affirms its existence on the grounds that “all hum ans are image-
bearers [with] the ability to grasp creational truths” and express “a universal
moral sense.”^ Frame concurs that sinful man does not “com pletely suppress”
the truths o f natural law, instead creating “a dynamic relation between true
understanding and suppression ofth at truth . . . [a] paradox o f [m an’s] recog-
nizing [natural law truth] while rebelling against it”— though Frame does not
believe VanDrunen sufficiently acknowledges this inherent tension bettveen
recognition and suppression.^ Similarly, Haas asserts ffiat VanDrunen only
adepuately presents a positive vision o f natural law, “d ism issin g ] . . . Calvin’s
negative assessment.”^ Scheuers accuses VanDrunen o f m aking “natural law
and Scripture two separate, nn-overlapp in g, in depend en t sources o f wisdom
and ’ with natural law functioning as “a wholly sufficient guide for
life in G od’s ffingdom .”^
But in contradiction to these criticisms, VanDrunen explicitly agrees that
“special revelation is also re‫ ؟‬uired in order that sinners may righdy apprehend
and interpret divine revelation in creation,” since sin has produced “devastat-
ing effects . . . on unregenerate humanity.”^ VanDrunen u n e‫ ؟‬uivocally rejects
the idea that “unregenerate sinners can derive a true code o f morality from
creation” that is in any sense “infallible .” ‫و و‬VanDrunen also fully em braces
both Calrin’s positive negative assessments o f natural law, along with “the
consequent necessity o f supernatural revelation,” Scripture “co rrectin g ] and
clarify[ing]” our interpretation o f natural law. ‫ﺀ و‬Yet, because non-Christians

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,” 0 ‫و) ل‬.
24 Mcllhenny, “Introduction,” xxxiii.
25 Erame, Escondido Theology, 128, 131.
26 Haas, “Calrin, Natural Law, and foe Two Kingdoms,” 62. Waddington understands Van-
Drunen 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 foe “nature/grace dichotomy” of Medieval Roman Catholicism, seemingly in contrast
with the view of foe Reformers who “understood foe fall to result in a corrupted human nature”
(Jeffrey c. “Duplex in Homine Regimen: A Response to David VanDrunen’s ‘The
Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine: An Explanation and Defense,’” The Confessional Presbyterian 8
[2612]: 193-94).
27 Scheuers, “Dual Citizenship, Dual Ethic?,” 134, 135.
28 VanDrunen, “VanDrunen in foe Hands.”
29Ibid.
30 VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 105; David M. VanDrunen, “Two Kingdoms
22 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

(j© not themselves acknowledge the authority o f Scriptural revelation, natural

law “provides a way for Christians to engage in m eaningful moral conversa-
tion in the public ^ u a r e ” beyond m erely explicit apologetic and evangelistic
interactions. VanDrunen qualifies the usefulness o f natural law by noting that
“we should not ask m ore o f natural law than it can provide,” since there is not
“any foolproof way o f making persuasive natural law arguments,” as “unbeliev-
ers will often reject them (as they reject arguments ftom S c r ip t u r e ) .U p o n
exam ination, the dirision b erreen VanDrunen and his critics is not the result
o f radically different understandings o f natural law.

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

O n e final criticism o f V anD runen’s two kingdom s view concerns its rela-
tionship to A ugustine’s “two cities” doctrine. In ?arler’s interpretation, “Van-
Drunen sees Augustine’s thought as similar to the Two Kingdoms perspective.”^
Jam es K. A. Smith also understands VanDrunen as claim ing A ugustine’s two
cities as a “precursor and source for two-kingdoms theory,” with the doctrine
o f two kingdoms being “a faithful translation or extension o f A ugustine’s ac-
cou n t o f two cities,” w ithout “a significant difference between the two.”33 In
spite o f VanDrunen’s claims, both Smith and ?arler agree t h ^ u ^ s t i n e and
VanDrunen cannot, in fact, be reconciled.3* But Smith and Parier misunder-
stand V anDranen’s position since he describes two cities and two kingdoms as
“distinct, though com patible, doctrines,” with two kingdoms being neither a
rejection nor m odification o f A ugustine’s radical antithesis between the two
cities but instead an effort to address a different issue— “how God exercises his
rule in the world.”^ Like Augustine, VanDrunen fully believes that “a funda-

and Moral Standards,” Westminster Seminary California Blog (February 28, 2011 ‫ر‬, http / ‫ت ﺀ س‬edu/ ‫ا ة‬
blog/entry/3315 (aceessed Apnl 4, 2013)
31 VanDrunen, Bwethics ‫ س‬the Christian Life, 36 Aceording to VanDrunen, “Most every un-
behever, in foet, aecepts the truth of at least some aspeets of the natural law True, they do not
accept It for what It really IS, die revelauon 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 die
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 ?ublic Square,” Modem Reformation 15 [2006], http //w ww
modernreformation org/default ^ty^ge=at1cled1spl^&var2=03 [accessed April 3, 2013] )
32 Branson Rader, “Two Cities or Two Kingdoms‫ ؟‬The Importance of the Ultimate in Reformed
Social Thought,” in Kingdoms Apart, 185
33James K. A Smith, “Reforming Rublic Theology Two Kingdoms, or Two Cities‫؟‬,” CTJ47
(2012) 125
34 Ibid , 128, ?arler, “Two Cities or Two Kingdoms105 ”,‫؟‬
35 VanDrunen, “Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” 178 VanDrunen argues that he IS follow
ing Calvin in this regard “While Calvin, like AugusUne, certainly believed in foe spiritual anuthesis
 THE KEYS TO THE TWO KINGDOMS 23

mental antithesis exists between believer and unbeliever in their basie perspec-
tive and attitude toward God, morality, and eternity” but he also believes that
“alongside this antithesis God . . . ordained an elem en t o f com m onality in
the world.”^ Instead o f rejecting or obscuring A ugustine’s two cities antithesis,
V anDrunen, like Kuyper, pairs the antithesis with com m on g r a c e d In fact,
according to VanDrunen, “in this dual reality o f antithesis and com m onality
lies the origin o f the two kingdoms.”^ In making a distinction between ultimate,
eternal antithesis and penultim ate, temporary commonality, VanDrunen does
not intend to imply any radical division between these two realms since “the
clash o f ultimate concerns am ong mem bers o f a society” can also lead to “ir-
reconcilable differences on basic penultimate concerns.’’^ Though VanDrunen
agrees that Christians are “dual citizens in a sense,” in another sense “our two
citizenships are incom m ensurate” since “we belong to the spiritual kingdom as
we can never again belong to the civil l t i n ^ r a . ”^ VanDrunen’s two kingdoms
paradigm allows him to affirm, with his critics, the antithesis o f Augustine in
reference to m em bership in on e kingdom, while simultaneously affirming the
com m on grace ©f Kuyper in reference to m em bership in the other kingdom.**

between God and Satan and between believers and unbelievers, he was not attempting to express
this distinetion in his ‫ س‬kingdoms doctrine. Calvin’s two kingdoms were not the Hngdoms of God
and Satan; instead, God rules both kingdoms—albeit in different ^ y s -a n d believere belong to both
simultaneously” (David VanDrunen, “The Two Kingdoms: A Reassessment of the Transfomiationist
Calvin,” CTJ40 [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 ofboth kingdoms
during their earthly lives. Calrin perceived a difference between these kingdoms but not a funda-
mental antithesis. The antithesis lay elsewhere” (VanDrunen, NaturalLaw and the TwoKingdoms, 71).
36 VanDrunen, Living in God’s TwoKingdoms, 20.
37 Another expression of the Augustinian antithesis between believers and unbelievers is the
apologetics approach of Cornelius Van T il-a n approach which VanDrunen embraces alongside
his recognition of cultural commonality between believers and unbelievers. “I hold to a Van
Tillian, presuppositional view of apologetics. . . . 1 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
©‫ ؛‬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 ?enultimate: Reformed Social Thought and the
Contemporary Critiques of the Eiberal Society”Journal ofMarkets and Morality 38-237 : (2006) ‫و‬.
40 David VanDrunen, “The Two Kingdoms and tire Ordo Salutisr. Eife Beyond^dgment and the
Question of the Dual Ethic,” w r j7 0 (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
24 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

IV. C ovenantalFram ework:

The F undam ental D ivide Between VanDrunen a n d H is Critics

After dem onstrating that the preeeding com m on criticisms o f VanDrunen

are either concerning secondary matters or are m isunderstandings o f his riew,
this article will now endeavor to show that the fundam ental diride between
VanDrunen and his critics is rooted in differing conceptions o f the covenantal
framework o f Scripture. VanDrunen sees a biblical covenantal framework as
“the place where a system o f theology can be centered and from which it can
em erge in orderly coherence and biblical fidelity,” providing “an architectonic
structure that undergirds all o f the various threads o f revealed truth.”42 Van-
D ronen then seeks to root the two kingdoms doctrine within this overarching
covenantal framework o f Scripture, an effort expressing the seminal influence
o f his form er professor M eredith G. Kline, from w hom he learned “to read
Scripture through the lens o f a ribrant covenant theology.”4‫؟‬
V anDronen’s covenantal fram ework consists o f five distinctions or areas o f
discontinuity** While VanDrunen also recognizes important areas o f continuity
within Scripture’s covenantal structure, his particular understanding is best illus-
trated through an exam ination o f these five distinctions.^ The first distinction

m general and his preservat1©n and blessing of civil society in particular, they did not use common
grace as a distinct and organizing categoity” (David VanDrunen, “Abraham Kuyper and the Re-
formed Natural Law and Two Kingdoms Traditions,” C7/42 [2007! 299)
42 VanDrunen, “A System of Theol ogy209 ,196 ”,‫ ؟‬Gentry and Wellum argue similarly that
“correctly ‘putting together’ the biblical covenants IS central to the doing ofbiblical and systematic
theology and thus to the theological conclusions we draw from Scripture in many doctrinal areas”
(?eterj Gentry and Stephen j Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant A Biblical-Theological Understand
ingofthe Covenants [Wheaton Crossway, 20121, 2‫) و‬
4 ‫ آ‬VanDrunen,
‫أ‬ “Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” 181 Regarding the terminology of “two
^ngdoms,” Sheuers questions, with some validity, whether Scripture ever speaks of two “kingdoms”
in the way that VanDrunen proposes (Sheuers, “Dual Citizenship, Dual Ethic134 ”,‫ ؟‬n 28) In many
respects, VanDrunen IS merely following the lead of Calvin and the Reformed tradition in talking
m terms of tivo “kingdoms ” Nonetheless, for die 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 andjoel E Kim, Escondido, Calif Westminster Seminary California, 2010),
135, also VanDrunen, NaturalLaw 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 m foe covenant theology that has long been a distinguishing mark of
Reformed theology”
44 Gentry and Wellum agree that “do[ 1ng] justice to foe biblical distinctions between foe cow
enants lead[s] us to affirm some crucial covenantal discontmuities-all of which have massive
implications m many areas” (Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 71) In foe same way,
foe covenantal discontinuities proposed by VanDrunen have significant implications, not die least
of which IS foe necessity of a two kingdoms doctrme
45 Another covenantal distinction important for VanDrunen and foe Reformed tradition IS foe
eternal covenant of redemption or pactum salutis, “one of foe most important and widely taught
aspects of Reformed covenant theology and a cornerstone of Its soteriology” (David VanDrunen
 THE KEYS TO THE TWO KINGDOMS 25

is between the Creation and N oahic covenants, understood as a distinction

between a covenant o f worlds and a covenant o f grace.^ The second distinction
is between the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants, understood as a distinction
between a com m on 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 betw een a ^ o u r n in g covenant o f
not‫־‬yet‫־‬realized rest and a settled covenant o f ^ready-realized rest. The fourth
distinction is between the Old and New covenants, understood as a distinction
between two special grace covenants in which one com pletely fulfills the other.
The fifth distinction is between the Inaugurated New Covenant and Consum-
m ated New Covenant, understood as a distinction within the special grace
covenant as already realized in the church but not yet realized in all creation.

I. Distinction Between the Creation Covenant ‫س‬ the Noahic Covenant

Frame identifies the foundational influence o f Kline’s exegetical conclusions

on VanDrunen and other advocates o f a two kingdoms doctrine; Frame in fact
labels them “Klineans.”** Frame correctly understands that Kline posits that the
“cultural m andate” o f the original Creation Covenant o f Gen 1 is not the same
as the “cultural m andate” o f the N oahic Covenant o f Gen 9, but Frame re]ects
Kline’s distinction as “m isleading”— though Kline’s distinction is in many ways
no different than the traditional Reformed distinction between the covenant
o f works and the covenant o f grace.48 But other critics o f VanDrunen seem
not to understand the im plications ofV anD runen’s embrace o f Kline’s distinc-
tion. For instance, M cllhenny interprets VanDrunen as concluding that “the

and R. Scott Clark, “The Covenant before the Covenants,” in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral
Ministry: Essays by the Faculty ofWestminster Seminary California [ed. R. Scott Clark; ?hillipsburg, N.J.:
?resbyterian 8c Reformed, 2007], 107). VanDrunen defines the pactum salutis as “a pretemporal,
intratrinitarian agreement be^een the Eather and Son, in which the Eather 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 ^arantee ٠.. r a t in g the Eather’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 befiveen 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
‫ﺎ ل‬existence,
‫ﻗ‬ see Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 177-221. For the purposes of this
article, the Creation Covenant will be presupposed.
47 Erame, Escondido Theology, 152.
48 Ibid., 175. See Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal
Worldview (Overland Park, Kans.: Two Age Press, 2000), for Kline’s detailed proposal.
26 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

cultural m andate is n o longer relevant for Christians today,” while Scheuers

reads VanDrunen as holding that “no legitimate cultural m andate remains.”*‫؟‬
But in differentiating the Creation and N oahic 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 o f cultural vocations in
this world must be conceived as som ething different from Adam’s original man-
date (even if they are similar to it in im portant respects),” acknowledging both
continuity discontinuity betw een the two covenants.^ A ccording to the
Reformed tradition, foe Creation Covenant (or Covenant ofWorks) with Adam
m andated his perfect obedience.^ Humanity’s fall into sin makes our ea r rin g

49 Mcllhenny, “Introduction,” XX1-XX11, Scheuers, “Dual Citizenship, Dual Ethic ”‫؟‬, ‫ل‬2‫ و و‬n
9 ‫ة‬VanDrunen, “Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” 183 Gentry and Wellum agree with
this identification of continuity and discontinuity between foe 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 foe 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 ‫؛‬٥١٢١foe expectation is that he will respond perfectly Eurthermore, as foe covenants
unfold, the same emphasis IS in all of them Complete obedience and devotion are demanded fiom
foe covenant mediators and the people, God demands and deserves nothing less In this sense,
there IS a conditional/bilateral element to all foe covenants It IS this latter emphasis on God’s
demand of complete obedience from his creatures which IS crucial m establishing the grounding to
the active obedience of Christ” (Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 666) Nonetheless,
before foe fall, mankind’s complete obedience was at least a possibility, whereas after foe fall, “foe
intent of man’s heart IS evil fi‫־‬om his youth” (Gen 8 21), demonstrating foe radical distinction
between foe settings, expectations, and purposes of the Creation and Noahic covenants Another
helpful way to understand foe distinction between foe mandate of mankind before and after foe
foil are foe categones “structure” and “direction,” distinguishing man’s ontological identity as foe
image of God (“structure”) from man’s mal/ffrnctioning as foe image (“direction”) “Structure
refers to foe order of creation, to foe constant creational constitution of any thing, what makes It
foe thing or entity that It IS Structure IS anchored m foe law of creation, foe creational decree of
God that constitutes foe nature of different kinds of creatures It designates a reality that foe philo
sophical tradition of foe West has often referred to by such words as substance, essence, and nature
Direction, by contrast, designates foe order of sin and redemption, the distortion or perversion
of creation through foe fall on foe one hand and foe redemption and restoration of creation in
Christ on foe other ^tything in creation can be directed either toward or away from G od-that
IS, directed either in obedience or disobedience to his law” (Albert M Wolters, Creation Regained
BibliealBasicsfor a Reformational Worldview [2d ed , Grand Rapids Eerdmans, 2695], 59) Henry Van
Til earlier used die same categones “In foe structure ofhis creaturehood, man remained foe 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 chiefjoy” (Henry R. Van
Til, The Calvinistic Concept of Culture [Grand Rapids Raker, 1959], 57) This distinction between
structure and direction IS also similar to a distinction Kline makes bettveen mankind’s “official
glory” (structure) and “ethical glory” (direction) (Meredith G Kline, “Creation m foe Image of foe
Glory-Spint,” W7/29 [1976/77] 269) How are these categories helpful in understanding foe ‫ ل‬1‫و‬
continuity between foe Creation and Noahic covenants‫ ؟‬Before foe fall, mankind was expected and
able to obey perfectly in terms ofboth structure and direction After foe fall, mankind could at best
obey m a structural sense, always directionally falling short The Noahic Covenant then IS primarily
 THE KEYS TO Ί ΗΕ TWO KINGDOMS 27

out o f this m andate im possible. according to VanDrunen, “God

does not call Christians to take up the original cultural m andate o f Genesis
1:26-28 per se, but calls them to obey the cultural mandate as given in m odified
form to Noah in Genesis 9.”52 This m odified form is “a rerised cultural mandate
٠ . . the original cultural m andate refracted through foe Noahic covenant for
a fallen yet preserved world.”^ In contrast to foe Adamic Creation Covenant,
this rerised covenant can he labeled foe 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 com m on covenant.^* The Noahic
Covenant can then be understood as “the formal establishm ent o f the com-
m on kingdom,” a kingdom populated by all humanity and which “God him self
established and rules.”^ While all people, believers and unbelievers alike, are
“morally accountable to G od” for carrying out the rerised cultural mandate o f
the Noahic Covenant, at foe same time, it is noteworthy that with a “backdrop
o f great hum an deprarity,” Gen ‫ و‬sets forth “no grand social vision.”'‫®؟‬The
Noahic Covenant is accom m odated to sinful hum anity’s inability to perfectly
obey, but is in no sense “a realm o f moral neutrality or hum an autonom y,”
but is ruled by God.^ This com m on kingdom encom passing all humanity and
formally established in foe Noahic Covenant is then the first o f VanDrunen’s
two kingdoms, dem onstrating how his riew is fundamentally rooted in a certain
conception o f the Bible’s covenantal structure.

2. Distinction Between the Noahic Covenant and theAbrahamic Covenant

Frame not only rejects VanDrunen’s (and Kline’s) distinction between the
Creation and Noahic covenants but also their conception o f the Noahic Cov-
enant as in tend ed strictly to preserve rather than redeem .‫®؟‬Fram e’s riew o f

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 rtnbelievers. VanDrunen refers to
this difference as the distinction between “oriective standards” and “sutyective motivations” in
carrying out the cultural mandate. While believers and unbelievers may share common “objecthe
standards” for the cultural task, they will differ in their “su^ective motivations,” two categories,
in some sense, corresponding to both the commonality and the antithesis between believers and
unbelievers (VanDrunen, “R e f o l d Kingdoms Doctrine,” 189).
‫ص‬VanDrunen, Living in God's Two Kingdoms, 164.
‫ص‬VanDrunen, “Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” 184.
54 Darid VanDrunen, “The Two Kingdoms and the Social Order: ?olitical and Eegal Theory in
Light of God’s Covenant with Noah,”Journal of Markets and Morality 14 (2911): 446.
55 VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 81.
56 Ibid., 165; VanDrunen, “Importance of the ?enultimate,” 240.
‫إل و‬VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 81.
58 Erame, 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
28 WESTMINSTER ™ E O L O G I^ L ^ U R N A L

the N oahic Covenant as both preservative an،¿ redemptive highiights a second

crucial area o f covenantal distinction which illum inates the fundam ental di-
vide between VanDrunen and his critics. For VanDrunen, the com m on grace
Noahic Covenant contrasts with the special grace covenant which God initi-
ates with Abraham, a special grace covenant which develops further under the
Mosaic covenant and is then fulfilled in the New Covenant . ‫و ذ‬O n the one hand,
the com m on grace covenant is universal and temporary with the purpose o f
preservation; on the other hand, the special grace covenant is particularistic
and eternal with the purpose o f redem ption.^
In distinguishing the N oahic and Abrahamic covenants, VanDrunen reveals
the roots o f the two kingdom s doctrine. According to VanDrunen, “the two
kingdom s correspond to [the com m on grace and special grace covenants,]
the m eans by which God in his Son exercises his twofold rule,” dem onstrating
that “G od’s preservative and providential reign over this world . . . is distinct
from his redemptive work.”^ The mandates o f each covenant are different as
“the imperatives o f the N oahic co v en a n t.. . com e to people not as redeem ed
by God but as created and preserved by him . . . not as believers but as hum an
beings.”‫ ^؛‬In contrast the imperatives o f the special grace covenants com e to
“G od’s redeem ed covenant people as the proper response to his special grace
toward them .”^ The resulting situation, VanDrunen argues, is:

God’s people are thus ealled to live under both c o v e n ^ s —that IS, in two kingdoms
On the one hand, they respect tile terms o f the Noahic covenant as they pursue a
variety of cultural activities in common with unbelievers On the other hand, they
embrace the terms o f the Abrahamic covenant ofgraee as they cling to the promises
o f salvation and eternal life in a new creation and as they gather in worshipping
communities distinguished from the unbelieving world.‫^؛‬

Reformed theologians who interpret foe Noahie covenant as a covenant of common grace rather
than of special, saving grace,” a lme including modern proponents such as Kuyper, Bavinck, and
Vos (David VanDrunen, “Bearing Sword m the State, Turning Cheek in foe Church A Reformed
Two-Kingdoms Interpretation of Matthew 5 38-42,” Them 34 [2009] 329 ٨ 19)
59 Gentry and Wellum seem to allude to a similar conception “It is in light of foe Eall that foe
Old Testament makes an important distinction bettveen foe sovereignty and rule of God over the
enure creation and foe coming of his saving reign m the context ofa rebellious creation to make
all things right” (Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 593)
‫ص‬VanDrunen, “Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” 183-84
61 Ibid , 183, VanDrunen, “Two Kingdoms and foe Social Order,” 446 According to Gentry and
Wellum, “The covenant made with Noah creates a firm stage ofhistoi^ where God can work out
his plan for rescuing his fallen world,” ldentib^ng foe Noahic covenant as a gracious covenant with
all humanity by which “the earth is maintained and preserved m 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 ( ‫ و ا س‬and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 169) The Noahic Covenant
Itself IS not redemptive, but It does play a role m God’s redemptive purposes
62 VanDrunen, “Two Kingdoms and foe Social Order,” 448
63 Ibid, 451
64 VanDrunen, Living in God's Two Kingdoms, 29
 THE KEYS TO THE TWO KINGDOMS 29

Such covenantal d itin c tio n s illum inate the fundam ental division between
VanDrunen and his critics.

3. Distinction Between theAbrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant

A nother key covenantal distinction V anD runen m akes is betw een the
Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants (until the exile), understood as a distinction
between a so ^ u m in g covenant o f not-yet-realized rest and a settled covenant
o f already-realized rest. W hen Abraham or his descendants do not possess the
covenant land, they are a so^ urning people looking to a future possession and
rest. W hen Abraham’s descendants possess the land as an expression o f the
Mosaic Covenant, they em body a realization o f the prom ised rest. According
to VanDrunen, this distinction is illustrated in the different ways the covenant
people relate to non-covenant people when sojourning versus when possess-
ing the covenant land. W hen sojourning in the land, in Egypt, or in Babylon,
the covenant peop le live in two kingdoms, sharing “com m on cultural space
together with unbelievers in as m uch peace and cooperation as possible,” even
while rem aining “radically distinct from the world in their faith and worship.”^
This relationship o f both com m onality and antithesis to those outside the cov-
enant is illustrated in Abraham’s interaction with the occupants o f the land,
Israel’s living am ong the Egyptians, and the exiles’ responsibility in Babylon to
“seek the welfare o f the city . . . and pray to the Lord on its behalf” (Jer 2 7: ‫) و‬,
even while rimultaneously praying for its ultimate destruction (?s ‫ ل‬37:8‫ ) و־‬. But
when Israel possessed the land under the Mosaic Covenant, their relationship to
those outside the covenant changed. VanDrunen observes, “The cultural com-
monality am ong believers and unbelievers ordained in the N oahic covenant
was suspended for Israel within the borders o f the ?rom ised L a n d .. ٠. Though
Israel was to show kindness to foreigners residing temporarily in Canaan . . . it
was not to maintain a com m on cultural life with pagans in the Promised Land.”‫**؛‬
Therefore, “Israel’s experience under the law o f Moses in the Promised Land o f
Canaan was not m eant to exem plify life under the two kingdoms,” illustrating
the distinction between the Abrahamic sojourning covenant o ^ t - y t - r e a liz e d
rest and the Mosaic settled covenant o f already-realized rest.67

4. Distinction Between the Old Covenant and theNeiv Covenant

T he fourth im portant covenantal distinction V anD runen m akes is the

well-chronicled distinction between the Old and New covenants. Even while
seein g significant continuity betw een these two covenants o f special grace,
VanDrunen nevertheless clearly states that “believers in the present era no

65 VanDrunen, “Importanee nf the ?enultimate,” 233.

66 VanDrunen, Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, 89.
67 Ibid.
30 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

longer live under the Abrahamie or Mosaie administrations o f the covenant o f

grace, but under the new covenant.”®®The kingdom resulting from this new
special grace covenant both fulfills and surpasses the special grace kingdom
o f the O ld Testament.^ But though the arrival o f the New Covenant m eans
the “en d o f the Mosaic covenant,” it does “n ot m ean the en d o f the N oahic
covenant.”™The com m on grace kingdom o f the N oahic Covenant still contin-
ues in the present New Covenant age, as believers and unbelievers still live in
m ixed societies throughout the world. This two kingdoms reality helps explain
why “the New Testament instructs G od’s people to conduct themselves similarly
to Abraham and the exiles in Babylon,” since m em bers o f the New Covenant
are also “so^urners and exiles” (j Pet 1:1, 17; 2:11) in this world, rather than
being “an ethnically defined p eop le living in on e small geographical area,” as
was Israel w hen they possessed the land under the Mosaic Covenant.™ There-
fore, mem bers o f the New Covenant in this age are to em ulate Abraham the
so^urner, living in two kingdoms, not Israel the conqueror, possessing the land
and living in on e kingdom.™

68VanDrunen, “Reformed Two Kingdoms Doctrine,” 186-87

‫و ج‬VanDrunen, Living in God's Two Kingdoms, 167
70 Ibid , 118,116 On one hand, Gentry and Wellum seem to concur “The covenant with Noah
ISm effect today There ISno evidence anywhere in the completed canon ofScripture 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 cove-
nants” (pp 604, 665) 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 m the Inaugurated New Covenant while the Noahic common ^ace covenant
IS still m effect, only ultimately fulfilled in the Consummated New Covenant, when Chnst redeems
all culture and nature Therefore, believers m 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 “recapitula-
tion” of Adam’s life in die Garden, but that this recapitulation was “unique to Mosaic-era Israel in
companson to other administrations of the covenant of grace,” since this recapitulation ISa position
that “the patriarchs under the Abrahamie covenant and Christians under the new covenant did not
and do not experience” (David VanDrunen, “Israel’s Recapitulation of Adam’s ?robation under
the Law of Moses,” WTJ7S [2611], 320) While Israel’s recapitulation was a failure, Chnst m his
first coming took up the Adamic role and perfecdy fulfilled It as the “last Adam,” illustrating that
the position ofNew Covenant believers IS not fundamentally one of resuming Adam’s original role
and responsibilities but one oftrusting m Chnst’s perfect work as the “lastAdam ” Not recognizing
this distinction between Chnst’s role as the “lastAdam” versus the role ofNew Covenant believers
called to trust in the work of the “lastAdam” rather than resuming the work of the “first Adam” IS,
according to VanDrunen, “perhaps the fatal flaw of neo-Calvmism” (VanDiunen, “Calvin, Kuyper,
and ‘Chnstian Culture,”’ 148) Gentry and Wellum also seem to recognize the uniqueness of the
Israelite Covenant as a temporary picture auticipating the later work of Chnst as “m God’s overall
plan the Mosaic law-covenant should be viewed as more ofa parenthesis or something temporary,
leading us to what the old covenant was ultimately pointing forward to, namely, the dawning of the
 THE KEYS TO THE TWO KINGDOMS 31

5. Distinction Between the Inaugurated New Covenant and the Consummated

New Covenant

The fifth key distincti«n VanDrunen makes is between the Inaugurated and
Consum mated 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
som e form o f “inaugurated eschatology,” the difference between the two sides
is found in exactly how they understand the distinction beUveen the New Cov-
enant believer’s role and responsibilities in the “already” versus the “not yet.”
For neo-Calvinists like Mcllhenny, the “already” role and responsibilities are
com prehensive, as “the Adamic human race perverts the cosmos; the Christian
hum an race renews it,” “call[ing] back (or buy[ing] back, as in redeem[ing])
the created order to its original state as God in tend ed ” and “reclaiming G od’s
creation from the totalizing effects o f the fall.”™Haas agrees that believers are
“restored to” Adam ’s original cultural calling.’* In contrast, Skillen believes
VanDrunen portrays life in “the age to co m e” as “antithetical to life in this
age.”75 Likewise, Venem a describes VanDrunen’s two kingdoms as a “dualistic
and incoherent” misreading o f Calvin, which “sharply distinguished] . . . the
present and future realization o f God’s redemptive purpose.”75 Rather, Venema
emphasizes that Calvin understands “Christ’s work o f redem ption” as one which
“involves the com prehensive reordering and renewing o f the entire created
order,” an understanding which Venema sees VanDrunen as rejecting.”
In reality, the key question for VanDrunen is not whether Christ com pre-
hensively redeem s the cosmos, but when he redeem s it. T hough VanDrunen
recognizes that neo-Calvinists fully embrace that “Christ is com ing again and
that only then will all things be perfectly restored,” VanDrunen also believes
neoCalrinists “tend to place rather high stock in the already manifest character
o f the eschatological kingdom ,” including the Christian’s present role in the
redem ption o f all creation and culture.75 VanDrunen finds it noteworthy that
many neo-Calvinists, follow ing D ooyeweerd, portray “the Christian ground

new envenant in Christ” (Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, ‫)و و‬. Eurther illustrating
tire temp©ra^ uniqueness ©f the Israelite c©venant. Gentry and Wellum also ©bserve that “the term
‘everlasting e©venant’ ©eeurs sixteen times in the Old Testament: tw© times ©f the covenant with
N©ah (Gen. 9:16a; Isa. 24:5), four times of the c©vennt with Graham (Gen. 1?:?, 19; Ps. 105:10;
1 Chr©n. 16:1?), 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; 3?:26), and three times of covenant signs
(Gen. 1?: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. 4?5-?6).
73 Mcllhenny, “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.
” Ibid., 2?.
78 VanDrunen, “Two Kingdoms: A Reassessment of the ^n^orm ationist Calvin,” 252.
32 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

motive as cre^on-f^l-redem ption,” not typically including “the fourth category

o f consum m ation.”79 This three-act conception, rather than a four-act concep-
tion, can create a blurring o f the lines o f distinction between the Inaugurated
and C onsum m ated New Covenant, particularly con cern in g the question o f
whether Christ’s redem ption o f all culture and the natural world begins in the
inaugurated “already” or whether Christ com m ences this universal transforma-
tion only in the consum m ated “not yet.”
The question o f when Christ redeem s the cosm os likewise has necessary im-
plications for the question o f a Christian’s role and responsibility in the present
age. VanDrunen describes neo-Calrinists as beliering that “the work o f bring-
ing in the perfect realization o f the e^ h atologica l kingdom on the present
earth begins already in the Christian’s cultural labors here and now,” with the
consumm ation o f Christ’s return merely “the climax o f the redem ption process
already underway rather than a unique, radical event in history.”*9 Christians
are then tasked “to bring the eschatological kingdom o f Christ to expression
in every area o f society and culture,” since “all cultural labor is kingdom work
. . . aim [ing] to advance the full realization” o f the kingdom by transform-
ing “ordinary actirity” into ‘“kingdom service,’ which produces ‘the building
materials for that new earth.’”** T he result is the pursuit o f a rision o f hum an
society which “in on e way or another, manifests the eschatological kingdom
o f Christ in the here and now.”‫ ^؛‬VanDrunen labels this vision as “an eschato-
logical burdening o f cultural work,” whereas, in contrast, he him self holds that
“the eschatological kingdom does not have a contemporary social expression
(other than the church) nor does Scripture present a norm ative vision for
contem porary society.”8‫ ؟‬Instead, VanDrunen sees “the broader cultural realm
as rooted in the creation order as preserved but n ot red eem ed ”; h ence, his
advocacy for a two kingdoms conception.** VanDrunen’s distinction between
the initial redemptive work o f Christ (and his people) in the Inaugurated New
Covenant, on the on e hand, and the universal redemptive work o f Christ (and
his people) in the Consum mated New Covenant, on the other hand, is part o f
the fundam ental dirision between VanDrunen and his critics.

79 VanDrun€n, NaturalLaw ‫ س‬the TwoKingdoms, 353, VanDrunen, “Two J^ngdoms A Reassess-

ment of the Transformationist Calvin,” 252
80 VanDrunen, “Two Kingdoms A Reassessment of the Transformationist Calvin,” 252
81 VanDrunen, “Importanee of the ?enulomate,” 225, VanDrunen, Livingin Gods TwoKingdoms,
19
82 VanDrunen, “Importanee of the ?enultimate,” 224
83 VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms, 384, VanDrunen, “Importance of foe Penul-
tímate,” 235
84 VanDrunen, “Abraham Kuyper and foe Reformed Natural Law,” 284
 THE KEYS TO THE TWO KINGDOMS 33

V. Conclusion

A lthough there are som e differences between VanDrunen and his critics
in how they interpret the Reform ed tradition and how they understand issues
such as natural law or the integration o f om m on ality and antithesis, this article
has identified their fundamental division as rooted in com peting ^ews ofScrip-
ture’s underlying covenantal structure. Since o n e’s choice o f a two kingdoms or
a neo-Calvinist paradigm has implications for a whole host o f theological issues,
incliiding issues o f Christology, n th ro p o lo g y , soteriology, ecclesiology, and
missiology, may both sides o f the debate continue this important discussion.
 ‫آلﻣﺂورلم؛‬

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)’ express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ٥ ۴ ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use ‫ آس‬covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia‫ ؛‬funding from Liiiy Endowment !)٦٥.

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.