For all of those who think that two-kingdoms theology overly spiritualizes the Christian life, Martin Luther to the rescue:
Commenting on Mark 7:33 (“And he took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spit, and touched his tongue.”)
He singles out these two organs, ear and tongue, because the kingdom of Christ is founded upon the Word, which cannot be perceived and comprehended except with these two organs: ears and tongue. The kingdom reigns in the human heart by faith alone. The ears comprehend the Word and the heart believes it. Therefore if tongue and ears are taken away, there remains no marked difference between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of the world.
For in the outward life a Christian goes about like an unbelieving man: he builds, tills the ground, and ploughs like other men. He does not undertake any special tasks, neither as regards eating, drinking, sleeping, working, nor anything else. These two organs alone make a difference between Christians and non-Christians: that a Christian speaks and hears in a different manner and has a tongue which praises God’s grace and preaches Christ, declaring that He alone can make men blessed. The world does not do that. It speaks of avarice and other vices, and preaches and praises its own pomp. (Sermon from 1534 reprinted in Day By Day We Magnify Thee)
We get true spirituality in ensouled bodies. And those bodies and their activities are no different from the bodies and activities of non-believers, except when it comes to sacred affairs like prayer as opposed to plumbing.
Old Life 
Why assume that Luther’s reference to speaking and hearing only deals with ‘sacred affairs’ of prayer (privately praise of God only? or publicly as well)
Will the Christian not speak about love?
Two men till the ground the same. But one man may say “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit” and a christian man must not. Will he say anything?
LikeLike
Luther’s uses of the tongue are not prayer (though he would approve), but praising God and proclaiming Christ, in contrast to praising oneself.
It is not private religious virtue but public that he seems to have in view.
LikeLike
I would like to see some 2K opponents reckon with some of the biblical teachings on not doing our good deeds before men, not letting people know we are fasting, praying in private in our closets, etc. How do you reconcile these things with a “Christianity of the public square”?
LikeLike
Paul, what’s wrong with trading and making a profit?
LikeLike
Jeff, the point wasn’t private vs. public. It is when it comes to the church which is a voluntary association as opposed to a public institution. But then private organizations hold public meetings — like public worship. The point is that a Christian doesn’t plumb differently from a non-Christian. But praising God is unmistakable for the contrast between Christian and non-Christian actions. Some activities are Christian, others are common.
LikeLike
DGH claims Some activities are Christian, others are common.
Where do you see this concept taught in the Bible? I read that whatever we do, we do for the glory of God. And I have yet to read, (in the Bible) where God calls certain activities christian and others common.
Balls in your court: And Darryl, if you can’t find this taught in Scripture, then quit saying it!
LikeLike
Doug, without the sacred/secular distinction what is the difference between taxes and tithes? And what meaning could there be in rendering to Caesar and God what is theirs respectively? But without the distinction the two are collapsed into a religious state as opposed to a secular state (which may explain why 2k is so odious to the theocratic mind). But the scriptural burden still rests in your court, what with a NT pitting the kingdom of God with the powers and principalities of this world, weapons of the world and weapons of the spirit, this age and the age to come.
LikeLike
Doug Sowers wrote: “Where do you see this concept taught in the Bible? I read that whatever we do, we do for the glory of God. And I have yet to read, (in the Bible) where God calls certain activities christian and others common.”
GW: The Bible clearly distinguishes between the holy and the common (see especially Leviticus, for example). To say that an activity is “common” is not the same thing as saying it is profane or sinful. Nor is it to deny that believers are to pursue even their “common” activities (eating, drinking, sleeping, mowing the lawn, plumbing, working in their daily vocations, etc.) with excellence, and to the glory of God. It is also not denying that Christ in His general providence is indeed sovereign Lord and King over those “common” activities. Rather, it is simply a recognition that “common” activities are not “holy” activities (like the preaching of the Word, prayer, the sacraments, and worship), nor are “holy” activities to be viewed as “common” activities (like brushing your teeth, paying your taxes, shopping at the supermarket, etc.). Why does this seem to be so difficult to accept?
Let me offer a few examples from everyday life to illustrate the distinction between the common and the holy: A sumptuous evening meal with my family, specially prepared by the culinary skills of my better half, may indeed be a special and meaningful time with my family; a time for which I should give thanks to God our bountiful and benevolent Provider. But dinner with my family is not a sacred or “holy” affair. On the other hand, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper IS a “holy” meal, in a way that an ordinary meal is not. To call an ordinary meal (even a well prepared and delicious one enjoyed on a special occasion) a “holy” event is a taking of the Lord’s Name in vain, because it cheapens the genuinely holy covenant meal (the Lord’s Supper) by sacralizing the common and thereby secularizing the holy. Same thing with my morning shower. Taking a morning shower can glorify God as it helps us maintain personal hygiene and avoid giving offense to others with our body odor. But though it can be done for the glory of God, the act of taking a shower is not a “holy” event; it is a common, “secular” event. On the other hand, the ritual washing of water baptism IS a genuinely “holy” event. To deny any distinction between the holy/sacred and the common/secular is to introduce all kinds of confusion into our thinking, and ultimately to cheapen and de-sacralize that which is genuinely holy. Recognizing this distinction is not a denial of Christ’s Lordship or the Bible’s authority. Rather, it is an honoring of Christ’s Lordship over all things (both holy and common) and a submission to the Bible’s authority (since it involves submission to biblical teaching regarding the distinction between the holy and the common).
LikeLike
DGH: fair enough.
LikeLike
@Doug: Yes, everything is done differently. But the difference is likely invisible, since it is faith that makes that difference between God’s glory and man’s. Even upright business dealings can be done for self-interest rather than God’s interest.
Put this way: take two men who plumb excellently according to code. One plumbs to the glory of God (say, a Christian), one does not (say, a non-Christian). In a blind leak-and-tug test, will you be able to discern an outward difference in the workmanship? Probably not.
Will you be able to discern a difference in the integrity of their dealings with others? Possibly (and because of sin, not always in the Christian’s favor).
Can you as an elder tell the Christian plumber that he is obligated to plumb with integrity because of the Lordship of Christ? Definitely.
Should the Christian plumber regulate his own business dealings to conform to the Scriptures (to the extent they apply)? Yes.
Can you as a code inspector tell both plumbers that they are obligated to good craftsmanship because it’s the right thing to do? Yes.
Can you as the BBB tell both plumbers that they are obligated to upright business dealings because it’s the right thing to do? Yes.
Can you as a code inspector tell both plumbers that they are obligated to integrity because of the Lordship of Christ? No — because the non-Christian is currently in a state of rebellion against Christ, and Jesus has determined not to deal with that rebellion until either election takes effect via effectual calling, or else until the eschaton. The code inspector is not an officer of the church, to call the non-Christian to account for his non-faith.
So the questions are:
(1) What kind of difference?
(2) In whose jurisdiction is the enforcement of that difference?
(3) What visibility — that is, empirical testability — will that difference have?
We might think, for example, of men “seeing our good works and glorifying their Father in heaven.” And certainly, that is a reasonable incentive to live uprightly. But there are outwardly virtuous pagans also, so that good works alone are not a difference, but simply a means that God can use to provoke faith.
My point is that there is the fruit of the Spirit, and then there is the counterfeit fruit of the Spirit. Telling them apart at any given moment is not always possible, since the real difference between them is faith.
LikeLike
Geoff & Jeff – man you guys are good! These are some of the better examples I’ve seen on this blog pertaining to this overly articulated subject (which is not to say, of course, that someone won’t have an answer for you).
LikeLike
Jeff, a breakthrough?
LikeLike
DGH: I’m not aware of anything having broken. 🙂 That is to say, I’m still operating pretty much from a triperspectival approach with a healthy dose of Calvin and Hodge, and I still believe that Scripture provides a normative framework for all of life.
However, I am more sensitive to questions about sanctification and justification, partly because of discussions at OL and partly because of occurrences elsewhere.
I’m definitely more cautious about “worldview”, if you want to score a genuine breakthrough.
LikeLike
Jeff – However, I am more sensitive to questions about sanctification and justification, partly because of discussions at OL and partly because of occurrences elsewhere.
Me – Indeed. One man’s definition of sanctification is another man’s legalism or denial of the gospel message.
LikeLike
The late great Louis Rukeyser used to call bond traders, bond ghouls. The reason is that bond traders always see things from the worst point of view, assuming that the economy is going to hell in a hand basket. Thus the only way to keep your money safe is in bonds, not stocks or any other asset. A more pessimistic bunch you can not find.
We seem to have some sanctification ghouls at Old Life.
Perhaps the best response to the sanctification ghouls who pester us 2K guys is to point them to Belgic 29 – “The Marks of the True Church”. The article says:
“The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church– and no one ought to be separated from it.”
A true church by definition takes sanctification seriously since it practices church discipline against those whose behavior makes obvious a lack of sanctification. We don’t need Richard’s morbid introspection or Doug’s equating justification and sanctification to get sanctification right as 2K thinkers and churchmen.
LikeLike
“A true church by definition takes sanctification seriously since it practices church discipline against those whose behavior makes obvious a lack of sanctification.”
Tell me who in the church has the proper behavior to speak of their sanctification?
I’ve never seen any.
LikeLike
I like this one on the subject:
http://theoldadam.com/2012/06/16/sanctification-the-theology-of-the-cross-and-the-similarities-between-evangelical-and-roman-catholic-theologies/
Enjoy.
LikeLike
Jeff, so the blog is not pointless. Glad for that.
LikeLike
Erik: A true church by definition takes sanctification seriously since it practices church discipline against those whose behavior makes obvious a lack of sanctification. We don’t need Richard’s morbid introspection or Doug’s equating justification and sanctification to get sanctification right as 2K thinkers and churchmen.
RS: But Richard does not teach a morbid introspection. It seems that every time you mention me you are violating the 9th commandment. Please stop for your sake and mine. For what it is worth, since my view on this type of thing is in line with the WCF and those who wrote it (from their other writings), I would argue that since my view bothers you so much that you could not really hold to the WCF in truth.
Q. 25. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam’s first sin,[93] the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually;[94] which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.[95]
RS: Since your opposition to the fact that God has set out a perfect standard as one that cannot be lowered, you will not be able to subscribe to WLC above. In real practice you are not very confessional.
LikeLike
It seems to me that Luther is not referring to our activities, e.g., praying versus plumbing, but that the Spirit works invisibly and inwardly through the word in believers alone and for the praise of God.
LikeLike
Don, how does this not refer to plumbing (as opposed to praying)?
LikeLike
Richard,
In recognition of you toning down your rhetoric I’ll tone mine down. Doug doesn’t get off so easy, though. I found a clip of Doug stumbling across a group of 2K thinkers gathering peacefully:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaBK0dBV47E
LikeLike
Darryl,
Because, it seems obvious to me, that he is contrasting the inward/invisible and the outward/visible. To contrast two outward tasks like plumbing and praying completely misses the point that God’s Spirit works inwardly/invisibly through the word preached and heard. It is equally possible for both the person who visibly prays and the person who visibly plumbs to inwardly express his praise to God. It is just as equally possible for the person who visibly prays and visibly plumbs to fail to praise God apart from inward faith. Remember the prayer of the pharisee and the tax collector?
LikeLike
Don,
This is the point you always start losing everyone.
LikeLike
LC,
I know, and I am puzzled as to why. Both Luther and Calvin clearly stressed the distinction, and I think that is exactly what Luther is stressing. I have a hunch as to why this important distinction is lost upon so many OLers, but I am striving not to be pejorative.
LikeLike
Don, you have come here often to lament the spirituality of the church, as if it is some kind of gnosticism. But then you take the spiritual/physical distinction as if it is as plain as day. You are certainly hard to figure, except that you seem to be always in dissent at OL.
But if it is so obvious that Luther is contrasting the inward and outward, invisible and visible, why is he spending so much time on the physicality of the body — tongues and ears. Those are different, but not the acts of plumbing.
LikeLike
Don: It is equally possible for both the person who visibly prays and the person who visibly plumbs to inwardly express his praise to God. It is just as equally possible for the person who visibly prays and visibly plumbs to fail to praise God apart from inward faith.
Yes, that’s exactly correct. And that’s where Luther goes: what distinguishes the Christian is the ear (a metaphorical organ of faith) and the tongue (a metaphorical organ of expressing faith). He’s putting an earthy metaphor around Romans 10.10.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Jeff provides a response with which I would agree. The spirituality I lament is the spirituality which views creation as something to be destroyed rather than to be esteemed as something that the meek will inherit when Christ returns..
LikeLike
Don, nobody is saying it’s not possible for both the person who visibly prays and the person who visibly plumbs to inwardly express his praise to God. But are you forgetting the Letter to Diognetus, which reads an awful lot like Luther:
Christians are indistinguishable from other men either by nationality, language or customs. They do not inhabit separate cities of their own, or speak a strange dialect, or follow some outlandish way of life…With regard to dress, food and manner of life in general, they follow the customs of whatever city they happen to be living in, whether it is Greek or foreign…As the visible body contains the invisible soul, so Christians are seen living in the world, but their religious life remains unseen.
LikeLike
Z,
I have not forgotten that letter, and am in fact basing my responses on that precise thought. The point is that our religious life (the life of the soul) remains unseen because it is inward and invisible, whether we pray or plumb.
But Darryl wants to say of believers that the bodies and their activities are different when it comes to sacred affairs like prayer as opposed to plumbing. This directly contradicts the statement that their religious life remains unseen.
LikeLike
So Zrim,
How does LetDiog deal with these:
So let your light shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, that you love one another.
Do everything without grumbling or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, “children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation.” Then you will shine among them like stars in the sky as you hold firmly to the word of life. And then I will be able to boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor in vain.
For all of the talk about the invisibility of faith (with which I generally agree) and about the common grace (agreed) that allows men to live “proximately righteous lives” (which bugs me as a mathematician, but we’ll let it slide), still and all: there is a visibility to the fruit of the Spirit that is supposed to be evidential.
Where does this fit in your scheme? Or the Letter’s scheme?
LikeLike
Don,
The spirituality I lament is the spirituality which views creation as something to be destroyed rather than to be esteemed as something that the meek will inherit when Christ returns…
I am having a hard time connecting your lamentation to anything that is affirmed within 2k theology. 2k often refers to the goodness of the created order, and it’s place in God’s providential rule as the basis for affirming the worth and dignity of human vocation, and avocation within the confines of the present age. I think that 2k is, in a very balanced, nuanced way world affirming. We affirm good food, drink, song, art, and the whole of life under the sun, but we also affirm that the present age is a passing one, and that even the good things here and now do not last like objects of God’s redemption.
Like Scripture teaches in Isa. 65, Rom. 8, 2 Pet. 3, Rev. 21 and several other key passages, we also affirm that this present age is passing, and will be subject to destruction before it is renewed in the age to come. I realize that the debate on the continuity between this age and the age to come has not been settled, but 2k advocates are also typically amillennial, and would affirm with Beale’s introductory comments on Revelation 21:
So, from the 2k perspective, enjoying the goodness of creation is something the Christian is absolutely free to do, but enjoyment of the goodness of God’s creation the present age, isn’t the same as enjoying the benefits of God’s redemptive work, which will persist long after this present age ceases. So we would simply try to balance a healthy affirmation of current creation with these Scriptural exhortations:
“Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:19-21)
If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. (Colossians 3:1-4)
LikeLike
Don, don’t go all gnostic on us and remember Romans 10:9 “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
LikeLike
Jed,
I could almost go along with the thoughts you have expressed.,Where I hesitate is in the sense I get from DVD in LGTK that the new creation is completely discontinuous with the present creation. I recognize that DVD focuses his argument primarily on the premise that the affairs of human culture are temporary, provisional, and bound to pass away. But I tremble when I read him lumping together creation with human culture as in page 26 when he says, The two-kingdoms doctrine enables us to affirm the goodness of creation and culture without losing sight of ctrucial distinctions.. Then, on page 66, DVD drops the bombshell when he saysOur earthly bodies are the ,b>only part of the present world that Scripture says will be transformed and taken up into the world-to-come.
So it would appear that although you say the debate on the continuity between this age and the age to come has not been settled, it would appear that the debate is settled in DVD’s mind, and that DVD would contradict Beale’s statement that Despite the discontinuities, the new cosmos will be an identifiable counterpart to the old cosmos and a renewal of it, just as the body will be raised without loosing its former identity.
LikeLike
Darryl,
It looks like the discussion has now come full circle — you cautioning me against going gnostic. 🙂
I hope my comment to Jed would disabuse you of that notion.
BTW, I am still hoping for an autographed copy of A Secular Faith as I am feeling rather gnostic in possessing only an electronic version. And it just so happens that Ken Myers is speaking at Hillsdale this week, so you would not need to mail it.
LikeLike
Don, but I would have to buy it. Here’s where I’m a good Dutch Calvinist.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Maybe I can get Ken to buy one and get you to autograph it for me.
LikeLike
Jeff, it is agreed that faith is to be visible. But whatever the visibility of faith means it has little in common with the sort of wear-it-on-your-sleeve show off piety Americans conceive. It could have more to do with a piety that esteems obedience before glory, as in doing what God commands (and avoiding what he abhors) even if there are no unbelievers around to see and as a result glorify God, or formally love and claim fellow believers–some of whom who can be little more than a source of embarrassment, even attending the means of grace when it means to reject family members who demand one choose between them and God.
I know some cringe at an OldLife kind of piety because it’s just not big muscle-y enough, coming off as almost ashamed of having faith. But some of us conceive of things in such a way as to perceive that forced public demonstrations are actually ways to mistreat the faith and almost shame God. Analogies are helpful. New school piety seems very close to adolsecent conceptions of intimate human relationships, thinking PDA is a proper way to express love. Old schoolers take a more adult view, thinking the opposite, that PDA is a way to disparage love. Old schoolers aren’t ashamed of their intimacy with God, we’re just trying to say that measured comportment is a better way to express it than giddy display.
LikeLike
Zrim – “we’re just trying to say that measured comportment is a better way to express it than giddy display.”
Erik – That’s why our Vacation Bible School is nothing to write home about…
LikeLike
Zrim: OK. I can live with that.
LikeLike
Terry Johnson avoids gnosticism—“The worship culture of Presbyterianism has included quiet reverence and emotional restraint, even among those not temperamentally given to such restraint… Emotional discipline was thought to be important, an excess of sorrow and exuberance to be avoided. Why? So that one’s focus on the word, sacraments, and prayer might be UNDISTRACTED by one’s overwrought passions. It was understood that those overcome by either extreme of emotion would struggle to redirect their attention to the word read, preached, prayed and seen… A quiet solemnity has characterized Puritan and Reformed worship (Eccl 5:1; Hab 2:20). Emotions are powerfully moved, but they run deep, below the surface. We have sought to worship God with the “reverence and awe” that is, with a DISPOSITION that is compatible with bowing and kneeling, WHATEVER OUR POSTURE HAPPENS TO BE (Heb 12:28; Ps 95:6). It was this consciously cultivated atmosphere of disciplined reverence that many of us found deeply satisfying, and more importantly, biblically balanced and sound. It was for this that many of us became Presbyterians.”
John Frame– A feature of the historia salutis method is that it sees salvation less in individual terms, more in corporate terms. The covenants are made through mediators with their families
https://frame-poythress.org/salvation-and-theological-pedagogy/
LikeLike
John C. Rao’s anthology Luther and His Progeny—. By separating the political and economic spheres from the realm of spiritual consideration, Protestantism not only inaugurated our secular age; it also helped—at least in the view of some of its critics—to give the market free rein. As Brian McCall argues in his contribution, while in the Catholic vision “economic works, as well as any other type of works, will affect not only natural but also supernatural ends,” the Protestant tradition proposed that religion and morality remain realms distinct from that of the economy.
https://www.thenation.com/article/martin-luthers-revolution/
“The Church and church jurists,” McCall observes, “were intimately involved in the development of economic laws that placed restraints on individual economic freedom up to the eve of the Reformation.” Thus, by disavowing those moral
constraints on the market, Protestant countries could reclaim a sphere that was otherwise still shaped, to some extent, by the Catholic Church from afar. But when the authority of the church receded from this newly delineated political-economic sphere, something else happened inadvertently: Contract and property law, now released from adherence to religious law, shifted over time, and a new social order began to develop throughout much of the Western Hemisphere—especially in the English-speaking North Atlantic. Protestantism did not create modern capitalism, but it did clear a considerable amount of space for its development.
“Protestant theology contributed to a shift in the underlying basis of contract liability,” McCall writes, “shifting from causa to consideration and promise to bargain.” Catholic jurists had formerly required that the purpose of a contract be a just and equitable one in order to enforce it, and they viewed breach of contract more as an issue of breaking promises than of failing to meet the substantive terms of the agreement. But Protestant theology gave rise to the idea that contracts were COVENANTS, “which, although freely made, once entered into [were] absolute.”
Thus, by the middle of the 17th century, Protestant courts had no obligation to try to bring about a general moral good when they adjudicated cases on property and contracts. While much of the jurisprudence in Catholic countries relied on a view of limited property rights that might allow their societies to realize God’s intention for all of His creation to be commonly held, the moral and legal thought in Protestant countries more often argued that the best way to look after the weak and needy was for each person to become as wealthy as possible and then give freely of that wealth. As the Enlightenment progressed, this vision blossomed into the liberal tradition as we know it, and into an insistence on ever more absolute property rights, sacrosanct from intrusion by church or state (except, curiously, when the state enforced them), with any means of redressing social or economic inequality primarily beholden to a citizen’s own conscience.
LikeLike
McMark, Protestants merely followed Rome’s lead in separating canon from civil law, church lands from civil authority’s territories.
I don’t see the problem, except that Rome had no way of shepherding businessmen and others in secular vocations. Rome believes in the priesthood of the priests.
LikeLike