Herman 1

Caleb Herman
Dr. Matthews
KSP 151
24 November 2015
Neo-Calvinism and Two Kingdom Theology
John Bunyans famous book, The Pilgrims Progress, tells the tale of
Christian, a young pilgrim from the City of Destruction. Christian discovers
the heavy burden of sin that he bears and is told by Evangelist that the only
way to rid himself of his heavy burden is to embark on a journey to the
Celestial City. In this dream of Bunyans, Christian encounters many trials
and difficulties that he must overcome on the way to the Celestial City, the
place where his beloved king reigns and lives. Christians long and arduous
journey is recounted in great detail as he discovers who he is and what the
king has done for him. This well-loved allegory delves deep into the
promises of the Scriptures and teaches what it truly means to be a child of
God the King on the journey of life.
The idea of two cities found in The Pilgrims Progress can also be used
to address questions regarding the nature of Gods Kingdom. Are there two
distinct kingdoms that God has set in place: one secular and one spiritual?
How are distinctions made between those who are saved and those who are
not? Two major paradigms involved in the discussion of these questions are
the neo-Calvinist perspective and the two kingdom perspective. The two
kingdom idea is commonly held by most Christians today, and in a sense,

Herman 2
the story of Pilgrims Progress can be used to support its claim. Bunyan
clearly sets forth two kingdoms: one spiritual and one secular. However,
much more must be taken into consideration before this book can be
labeled a two kingdom narrative. Ultimately, the neo-Calvinistic approach
to understanding Gods kingdom work is a more biblical and reformed
method that involves greater cultural implications than the two-kingdom
approach.
Two kingdom theology can be defined as two separate kingdoms
where God rules both his church in a spiritual, redemptive manner and the
world in a civil, non-redemptive manner. This theological perspective has
been on the rise amongst Reformed Christians in the last decades, and it
stands opposed to the traditionally held neo-Calvinist point of view.
However, according to David VanDrunen of two kingdom theologyperhaps
one of the most influential people in the ongoing debate regarding this issue
the two kingdoms perspective is actually deeply rooted in many of the
founding reformers such as Calvin and Augustine. In fact, VanDrunen claims
that the two kingdoms perspective possesses the most Reformed outlook on
this world. What exactly is two kingdom theology? VanDrunen describes it
best this way: According to [the two kingdoms] doctrine, God rules the
church (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 (VanDrunen 1). In other words, two kingdom

Herman 3
theology is exactly what it sounds like: the idea that Christians are a part of
two separate kingdoms and have particular obligations and duties to each
one.
Perhaps the greatest argument for two kingdom theology is the
concept of natural law. VanDrunen defines natural law as the 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 (VanDrunen 1). This innate sense of morality
leads to the development of civil laws that align with many of the laws of
God. Without Gods sustaining grace of natural law, the civil kingdom would
be unable to function. Therefore, even without a saving knowledge of
Christ, sinful men and women can have some knowledge of the law of God
(Haas 44). The civil kingdom operates solely through Gods general
revelation of natural law, while Gods special revelation through his
Scriptures governs the events and operations of the spiritual kingdom.
VanDrunen uses Calvin to assert his claim that while the natural law may be
useful for those in the spiritual or heavenly kingdom, its primary purpose is
to provide true and mundane knowledge in the civil kingdom (VanDrunen
112-13). Natural law is essential to two kingdom theology.
Two kingdom theologians claim the support of Calvin to uphold their
position on the dual aspects of the kingdom. First, VanDrunen says that
Calvin affirmed a clear distinction between a heavenly, spiritual kingdom
that finds present expression in the church and a civil, earthly kingdom

Herman 4
whose most notable institutional expression is the civil government
(VanDrunen 71). Since Calvin is held as one of the most prominent founders
of the Reformed faith, this claim has drastic implications. If Calvin does
indeed support the concept of two kingdoms, then two kingdom theology
possesses great credibility with modern day reformers. What does Calvin
himself have to say about this concept of two separate kingdoms? In his
Institutes, he states that there exists in man a kind of two worlds, over
which different kings and different laws can preside (Calvin 3.19.15). In
this passage, Calvin seems to support the existence of two separate
kingdoms in which the believers of Christ must live. The use of Calvin as
support is critical to two kingdom theology.
Before examining a neo-Calvinist view on the two kingdoms, one must
be aware of the various philosophies regarding natural law. Standing
opposed to two kingdom theology on the opposite side of the spectrum lies
theonomy, which claims that all people should be held accountable to the
Mosaic law. Theonomists advocate that the moral laws found in the Bible
should be the same laws used in civil and social institutions today. However,
this is an unbiblical interpretation of the differences between moral and
natural law. A neo-Calvinist perspective provides a more accurate
interpretation of the relationship between natural law and the two
kingdoms. Francis Turretin, an early Reformed theologian, argues that
natural law agrees with the moral law as to substance and regard to
principles, but differs with regard to conclusions (6). While all men

Herman 5
possess the natural law, the moral law of God is fully revealed to humanity
through Scripture. Ultimately, neo-Calvinists claim that the natural and
moral laws speak towards the same law imposed by God, but the natural
law is warped and twisted by sin. Therefore, the natural man has a skewed
sense of the requirements set in place by God. Nevertheless this should not
result in the moral law being applied to all those who are outside of Christ.
Although the unbeliever must be held accountable to the moral law of God,
implementation of the moral law in the civil sphere is not the proper
solution.
Furthermore, VanDrunen improperly interprets Calvins teachings on
two kingdoms and natural law. He argues that Calvin clearly advocates for
two kingdoms: a secular, temporal kingdom and a sacred, spiritual kingdom
both of which are manifested physically on this earth. However, Calvins
distinction of the church deals with the invisible church rather than with the
visible, physical presence of the church on earth. A further examination of
Calvins previously noted quote demonstrates that Calvins distinction of
two kingdoms lies in the context of civil kingdoms. In it, Calvin goes on to
discuss the relationship between spiritual liberty and civil government. He
notes, By attending to this distinction, we will not erroneously transfer the
doctrine of the gospel concerning spiritual liberty to civil order, as if in
regard to external government Christians were less subject to human
laws(Calvin 3.19.15). Therefore, his mention of two kingdoms is in
reference to the believers obligations to both this earthly government and

Herman 6
the heavenly ordinances of God; believers are duty bound to obey both. The
visible church is not a kingdom distinct from the temporal kingdom; instead,
it is merely another component of this earthly kingdom (Wedgeworth).
Similarly, advocates of two kingdom theology cite St. Augustine as an
early source of this perspective. Augustines City of God is used as a
defense of kingdom theology. In his book, Augustine articulates two main
kingdoms: the City of God, and the City of Man. According to Augustine, the
City of God is primarily a heavenly city composed of the saints, but believers
on this earth are also included as those on a pilgrimage to this City of God
(VanDrunen 22). Opposed to this city is the City of Man, which consists of
all evildoers, those who have rejected the true God (VanDrunen 22).
Ultimately, these two cities can be characterized as the kingdom of God and
the kingdom of Satan, both of which have significant biblical support. All
throughout Scripture the kingdom of God is held in stark contrast to
Babylon, the symbol of Satans sinful kingdom. However, while Augustines
City of God correctly applies biblical truths, VanDrunens use of it to
support his two kingdom theology does not. Branson Parler, Associate
Professor of Theological Studies at Kuyper College, notes the differences
between Augustine and VanDrunen in that for Augustine, the city of God is
not part of a different realm or kingdom than the earthly city but, unlike the
earthly city, uses the gifts God has given with reference to God rather than
an idol. Ultimately, Augustine views the difference between the two cities
as those who are saved and those who are not. Those who are saved have a

Herman 7
desire to worship and elevate God above all else, while those who remain in
sin desire to have their own needs and idols elevated in the place of God.
One must also possess a working definition of neo-Calvinism to
understand the differences in this ongoing debate. Neo-Calvinism can
typically be summarized by the ideas of creation fall redemption. God
created this world and called it good, but through mans fall, all of
creation fell into sin and disarray. God the Father provided a means of
redemption so that fallen mankind might enter into a state of union with
Christ. The neo-Calvinistic perspective also holds to the teachings of an
integral perspective, which does not accept a distinction between sacred
and secular realms in the cosmos (Wolters 12). This asserts that God is
sovereign over all creation, and therefore no areas of creation can fall under
a category of secular. According to Dr. John Frame of Reformed
Theological Seminary, it is evident from Scripture that religious issues
intrude into politics and culture, and therefore it is impossible to define a
realm that is exclusively religious or nonreligious. There is one realm, the
creation, the realm in which God works all things according to his sovereign
will and demands that we serve him in all aspects of our lives (Frame 134).
Similarly, neo-Calvinists hold to the teachings of Kuyper that every square
inch of this world belongs to Christ, and therefore we, as Christians,
should be at work to change the world and to transform culture (DeYoung).
For neo-Calvinists, the redemptive scope of Christs kingdom is larger than
just a spiritual kingdom. All of creation falls under Gods redemptive plan.

Herman 8
Herman Bavinck, a prominent Dutch theologian, speaks on these
issues decades before the recent controversy. He notes the following:
The church exists in the midst of the world with an origin,
essence, activity, and purpose of its own. While in every respect
it is distinct from that world, it never stands apart from or
alongside the world. Various schools of thought in Christianity
have indeed construed the church and the world as existing in
an absolute ethical antithesis to each other, equating creation
and re-creation with sin and grace. (Bavinck 435)
Again, he emphasizes the point of the neo-Calvinists of today: the church
and the world are not two distinct kingdoms of society. Rather, they both fall
beneath the shadow of this fallen world in need of redemption. Bavinck goes
on to discuss how Christians are to interact with culture. He notes that
since humans and Christians are one and the same, their duties in the world
do not change once they become a Christian. Instead, the same people who
are Christians are and remain in the same calling with which they were
called; they remain members of a family, members of a society, subjects of
the government, practitioners of the arts and sciences, men or women,
parents or children and so forth (Bavinck 436-37). Bavinck calls for a
redeeming of this world in the sense that all Christians are now called to
live in a renewing and sanctifying manner, and therefore reclaim aspects
of the world that were once seen as not Christian (437). Bavincks position

Herman 9
not only affirms neo-Calvinistic beliefs but also validates the neo-Calvinists
claim of a Reformed and biblical heritage.
Neo-Calvinist theologians refute the claims of the two kingdom
adherents on the basis that they are unreformed and unbiblical. First, it can
be argued that the two-kingdom perspective makes an unnatural distinction
between the roles of general revelation and special revelation (Scheuers).
General revelation (more commonly referred to as natural law in this
debate) deals with the innate sense of morality that can be found in all
people. Those in the two-kingdom camp hold to the viewpoint that all men
have Gods law written on their hearts and therefore are accountable for all
of the truths found in the law. However, those on the neo-Calvinist side of
the debate argue that the law of God written on the hearts of all mankind is
not enough. Man only has a sense of Gods law, which allows him to perform
any actions that could be deemed moral. Scheuers highlights the difference
between these two viewpoints:
We should be wary, then, of the presupposition that the
testimony of natural law and the aid of common grace can, in
any self-sufficient way apart from the testimony of Gods fuller
special revelation of himself and his law, provide the necessary
epistemological common ground between a believer and an
unbeliever in matters of civil procedure, morality, and ethics.
(Scheuers 139)

Herman 10
If unbelievers are viewed as not possessing the complete law of God, it
undermines the premise of the civil kingdom in two-kingdom theology.
Jason Lief, Associate Professor of Theology at Dordt College, highlights a
second point of disagreement between two kingdom theology and neoCalvinism in regards to natural law, and it is the way in which VanDrunens
use of natural law imposes a form of metaphysical, or ontological, moral
truth upon the social and cultural world (Lief 4). VanDrunens theology
places too high a regard on the ability of natural law to be at work in the
lives of unbelievers. Natural law and special revelation need not be held in
opposition to one another. Instead, God designed us to gain moral
knowledge, not by either supernatural revelation alone or natural revelation
alone, but by an organic combination of the two (Frame 130). There need
not be kingdoms formed to distinguish the ways in which God reveals
himself, just as Christians are not to live in different ways in the different
kingdoms of life.
With the problems with two-kingdom theology highlighted, it is crucial
to recognize that the importance of this debate is more than a difference in
biblical interpretations and use of the Reformed fathers ideas. The
concepts of this controversy directly influence the ways in which Christians
interact with culture. Michael Hortona proponent of the two kingdom
approachconcludes that we need not Christianize culture in order to
appreciate it and participate in it with the gifts that God has given us as
well as our non-Christian neighbors. Because two-kingdom advocates view

Herman 11
the world as sacred and secular, they see no need to influence culture in
such a way that it could fall under the sacred realm. Instead, they live in
each kingdom independently, performing the roles required of them in each
kingdom. In essence, they believe that, as Christians, we are not called to
choose between the two kingdoms. Rather, we must live simultaneously as
citizens of both while upholding both the cultural mandate and Great
Commission in the earthly city (Horton). Once again, the neo-Calvinists
stand directly in opposition to this claim. Neo-Calvinists believe that since
the Fall mars all aspects of creation, then all of creation must also fall under
Gods redemptive framework (Koyzis). In this paradigm, Christians have
the opportunity to actively be involved in the redemption of culture and
creation in such a way that even the seemingly un-redemptive aspects of
this world can be brought under Gods redemptive framework. However,
Koyzis clarifies this view by stating, The body of Christ is not undertaking
to bring heaven to earth, but is merely seeking to fulfill the central
command to love God and neighbor in all of life's activities. Christians
must recognize that the ultimate redemption cannot (and will not) take
place on this earth until Jesus comes again. Therefore, their redemptive
actions must reflect this truth. Christians need not go out of their way to
participate in unholy acts of culture for the sake of redemption. Instead,
Christians can be a part of Christs redemptive plan for this earth by living
as salt and light in the dark places of the world where Christ has placed

Herman 12
themserving in this earthly kingdom and awaiting the kingdom that is yet
to come.
Two kingdom and neo-Calvinist perspectives must also discuss the
roles of institutions in the secular realm that claim the name of Christian.
McIlhenny succinctly puts it this way: With that distinction between sacred
activity and cultural activity, the adjective Christian is superfluous, an
obvious problem for colleges or universities that take the name of Christ
(16). How are these institutions supposed to carry out the name of Christ in
their actions in culture? Take, for instance, the example of a Christian
college. Two kingdom proponents must address a variety of questions
regarding the role of this particular college. Does education fall beneath the
scope of the spiritual kingdom, or is it considered a part of the civil
kingdom? If education is included in the spiritual kingdom, what role is the
college to play in terms of its sports teams and performing arts department?
While two kingdom theologians might argue the value and purpose of
education as a subunit of the spiritual kingdom, they advocate that neither
sports nor performing arts can be characterized as part of the spiritual
kingdom. The neo-Calvinist perspective, however, more fully appreciates all
that a Christian institution has to offer. Those with this viewpoint advocate
that all portions of a Christian institution (such as a college) fall under
Christs redemptive framework. Performing arts can be carried out in a
redemptive manner. Sports teams can compete in such a way that bring God

Herman 13
glory. Two kingdom theology makes the name Christian irrelevant in the
secular realm.
Finally, it is important to clarify that for the neo-Calvinists, the
kingdom of God is not an immediate kingdom. As briefly mentioned
previously, neo-Calvinists understand their redemptive pursuits are not for
the ultimate purpose of bringing Gods heavenly kingdom to this earth.
Scott A. Swanson recounts the purpose of believers on this earth: Our
witness is to follow the testimony of Jesus, who is the true and faithful
witness, declaring his accomplished salvation and kingdom reign.
Swanson uses the book of Revelation to discuss the Kingdom of God and
what it means for believers. He discusses the implications of the not yet
aspects of the kingdom. How should the Christian portray the kingdom of
God on this earth? Swanson answers this question in the following:
Yet Revelations message should also warn us against any
triumphalistic overconfidence in Christian cultural
transformation in this world. Nor does it encourage us to see
our cultural engagements as in themselves advancing Christs
kingdom. They can and must aim to be expressions of our
faithful witness to that kingdom. And the kingdom does come
in Revelation even now on earth as the King is increasingly
acknowledged by the nations. This must have its outworking in
our cultural lives. (Swanson)

Herman 14
As Christians, we must be wary of overzealous behavior that assumes we
may bring Christs kingdom to this earth in our lifetime. Instead, his
kingdom is made known through our lifestyle and attempts to live for him in
all areas of life. By living an integral lifestyle, Christians can simultaneously
witness to those around them while glorifying their Creator.
A neo-Calvinist perspective correctly uses biblical support and
prominent reformers to confront the incorrect theologies of the two
kingdom viewpoint. Reformers like Calvin, Augustine, Bavinck and Turretin
support the claims of neo-Calvinists. The thoughts of these reformers can be
used to address VanDrunens incorrectly applied concepts of natural law to
his ideas regarding two kingdom theology. Ultimately, Bunyans The
Pilgrims Progress sums up the ideas of neo-Calvinism the best. Just like
Christian from the allegory, we are on a journey between two kingdoms
not the kingdoms that VanDrunen puts forth, but the two kingdoms of
heaven and earth. As Christians, our journey through this earthly kingdom
should be characterized by sanctification and redemption. We must follow
the narrow path to the Celestial City while redeeming and sanctifying the
portions of life we encounter along our pilgrimage. Our purpose is not to
bring Gods heavenly kingdom to earth. Instead, we strive toward making
his kingdom known on this earth until every knee shall bow.

Herman 15
Works Cited
Bavinck, Herman. Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. Vol. 4. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008. 435-39. Reformed Dogmatics.
Print.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 2. Trans. John Allen.
7th ed. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1936.
2 vols. Print.
DeYoung, Kevin. "Two Kingdom Theology and Neo-Kuyperians." DeYoung,
Restless, Reformed. The Gospel Coalition, 14 Aug. 2009. Web. 9 Nov.
2015.
Frame, John M. The Escondido Theology: A Reformed Response to Two
Kingdom Theology. Lakeland, FL: Whitfield Media Publishing, 2011.
Print.
Haas, Gene. "Calvin, Natural Law, and the Two Kingdoms." Kingdoms
Apart: Engaging the Two Kingdoms Perspective. Ed. Ryan C.
McIlhenny. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Co., 2012. Print.
Horton, Michael. "A Tale of Two Kingdoms." Editorial. Tabletalk Magazine 1
Sept. 2008: n. pag. Ligonier Ministries. Ligonier Ministries. Web. 09
Nov. 2015.
Koyzis, David T. "Two Kingdoms and Cultural Obedience." Comment.
Cardus, 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 9 Nov. 2015.
Lief, Jason. "The Two Kingdoms Perspective and Theological Method: Why I
Still Disagree with David VanDrunen." Pro Rege XLI.1 (2012): 1-4.

Herman 16
Print.
Mathison, Keith. "2K or Not 2K? That Is the Question: A Review of David
VanDrunen's Living in God's Two Kingdoms." Ligonier Ministries.
Ligonier Ministries, 9 Dec. 2010. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.
McIlhenny, Ryan. "Presentism and the Two Kingdoms Perspective." Pro
Rege XLII.3 (2014): 16-22. Print.
Parler, Branson. "Two Cities or Two Kingdoms? The Importance of the
Ultimate in Reformed Social Thought. Kingdoms Apart: Engaging the
Two Kingdoms Perspective. Ed. Ryan C. McIlhenny. Phillipsburg, NJ:
P&R Publishing Co., 2012. Kindle Edition.
Scheuers, Timothy R. "Dual Citizenship, Dual Ethic? Evaluating the Two
Kingdom Perspective on the Christian in Culture." Kingdoms Apart:
Engaging the Two Kingdoms Perspective. Ed. Ryan C. McIlhenny.
Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Co., 2012. Print.
Swanson, Scott A. "How Does Thy Kingdom Come before the End?
Theology of the Present and Future Kingdom in the Book of
Revelation." Kingdoms Apart: Engaging the Two Kingdoms
Perspective. Ed. Ryan C. McIlhenny. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing
Co., 2012. Kindle Edition.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Vol. 2. Trans. George
Musgrave Giger. Ed. James T. Dennison, Jr. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing, 1994. 1-18. Print.
VanDrunen, David. Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the

Herman 17
Development of Reformed Social Thought. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010. Print.
Wedgeworth, Steven. "Two Kingdoms Critique." Credenda Agenda.
CredendaAgenda, 21 June 2010. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.
Wolters, Albert M. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational
Worldview. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub., 1985.
Print.