What do you think?
Rate this book
Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought
Conventional wisdom holds that the theology and social ethics of the Reformed tradition stand at odds with concepts of natural law and the two kingdoms. This volume challenges that conventional wisdom through a study of Reformed social thought from the Reformation to the present. / ?The strength of this book is the overwhelming amount of historical evidence, judiciously analyzed and assessed, that positions the Reformed tradition clearly in the natural law, two kingdoms camp. This valuable contribution to our understanding of the Christian life cannot and should not be ignored or overlooked. The growing acceptance of the social gospel among evangelicals puts us in jeopardy of losing the gospel itself; the hostility to natural law and concomitant love affair with messianic ethics opens us up to tyranny. This is a much needed and indispensable ally in the battle for the life of the Christian community in North America.? / ? John Bolt / Calvin Theological Seminary
478 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 30, 2009
21 people are currently reading
190 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
March 4, 2025
Four stars for the depth of scholarship and broad treatment of an important and very neglected subject. However, from a personal enjoyment perspective, there were sustained moments where my rating would be significantly lower than that. While I am deeply interested in the subject of natural law and the Reformed formulation of two kingdoms, there were prolonged sections where VanDrunen's historical interest in the development/reception of these doctrines (particularly in early American thought) strayed well beyond my own interest. But the early and concluding chapters provide rich material that well repays the investment.
September 5, 2016
A great read on the subject matter. Covers the historical views from the early Church and pre-Reformation up to modern times.
Sadly, it seems modern times have moved away from the historical and Reformation and even early American views.
The last two chapters are somewhat disappointing in this regard, not due to the author, but due to where we are at today. I hope, as the author seems to, that the Reformed community can go back to our historic roots with regards to common grace, natural law, and the two kingdoms view.
I also wonder how much of my own thinking is due to modern WSC influence toward this direction or if I would agree with this view without their influence. But, we never can really be fully aware of what has influenced our thinking or where we would be without that.
Sadly, it seems modern times have moved away from the historical and Reformation and even early American views.
The last two chapters are somewhat disappointing in this regard, not due to the author, but due to where we are at today. I hope, as the author seems to, that the Reformed community can go back to our historic roots with regards to common grace, natural law, and the two kingdoms view.
I also wonder how much of my own thinking is due to modern WSC influence toward this direction or if I would agree with this view without their influence. But, we never can really be fully aware of what has influenced our thinking or where we would be without that.
November 1, 2019
Keeping the Bible out of the Public Square
Author David VanDrunen proposes that natural law, and not Scripture, provides the ground on which Christians should interact with the secular world in the areas of morals, ethics and public policy. According to the author, God ordained two separate kingdoms that are to be governed by two different sets of ordinances. The spiritual kingdom, which includes the church, is under Scripture while the civil kingdom, which includes the government and other secular institutions, is under natural law. To the extent that Christians participate in the civil kingdom, they must acknowledge natural law as the kingdom's ultimate authority. Scripture is not persuasive authority in the civil kingdom, says VanDrunen. But as a practical matter, neither is natural law and therein lies the rub.
Following the end of Scholasticism and subsequent demise of Modernism, natural law lost its street cred. Once upon a time the secular man on the street, as well as the ivory tower philosopher, assumed the existence of an objective natural order inherent in the universe and human nature that man could discover through the exercise of right reason, if not good conscience. Then along came the skepticism of David Hume and the hyper-skepticism of postmodernism, and the concept of an objective, discoverable, universal natural law became as outdated as phlogiston and spontaneous generation.
VanDrunen acknowledges the decline of natural law since its Scholastic heydays. He admits that "appeals to natural law actually made more sense in a pre-Enlightenment, pre-liberal Christendom context" and that "the present social context surely exacerbates the difficulty of constructing good natural law appeals." (Location 7134, 7141.) The theory limped into the Modernist era but then "the Enlightenment emphasis upon historical consciousness and the postmodern emphasis upon contextual relativity have generated much greater skepticism than in the pre-modern world toward appeals to a universal morality derived from human nature." (Loc. 7138.) Nowadays, natural law suffers both an ontological and epistemological crisis. Secular man doubts that natural law even exists (i.e., it has no ontological foundation), and even it did exist, secular man doubts that there is any rational way of discovering it (i.e., it has no epistemological foundation).
VanDrunen's only ontological defense of natural law is an appeal to Scripture: he knows natural law exists because the Bible tells him so. But that does not cut it in the civil kingdom because, according to VanDrunen himself, appeals to Scripture are neither authoritative nor persuasive there. VanDrunen's epistemological problem is even worse because, according to Calvin, Scripture teaches that fallen man's capacity to discern natural law lies in "a corrupted and shapeless ruin." (Loc. 1790.) So now VanDrunen has the double whammy of (1) an appeal to Scripture that the civil kingdom does not accept, and (2) Scripture teaching that secular man's ability to discover natural law (assuming it exists) is corrupted.
With nowhere to run, VanDrunen punts on a secular defense for natural law theory. He writes, "Natural law arguments have always been easier to dispute than to defend, and this promises to be a major task for future exponents...." (Loc. 7143.) But its not as if the Enlightenment began only yesterday. Natural law proponents have had hundreds of years to produce a secular defense of the theory and they've come up empty. VanDrunen provides no basis for expecting that future exponents of natural law will have any more success than their predecessors.
Moral, ethical and policy decisions are being made here and now in the civil kingdom. Christians are not to participate in this process by citing the authority of Scripture, says VanDrunen, but instead must cite the authority of natural law which, in the minds of secular men, either does not exist or is not knowable. Consequently, Christians following VanDrunen's advice will have no credible arguments in the public square unless and until they come up with a colorable defense of natural law theory.
Don't hold your breath.
Author David VanDrunen proposes that natural law, and not Scripture, provides the ground on which Christians should interact with the secular world in the areas of morals, ethics and public policy. According to the author, God ordained two separate kingdoms that are to be governed by two different sets of ordinances. The spiritual kingdom, which includes the church, is under Scripture while the civil kingdom, which includes the government and other secular institutions, is under natural law. To the extent that Christians participate in the civil kingdom, they must acknowledge natural law as the kingdom's ultimate authority. Scripture is not persuasive authority in the civil kingdom, says VanDrunen. But as a practical matter, neither is natural law and therein lies the rub.
Following the end of Scholasticism and subsequent demise of Modernism, natural law lost its street cred. Once upon a time the secular man on the street, as well as the ivory tower philosopher, assumed the existence of an objective natural order inherent in the universe and human nature that man could discover through the exercise of right reason, if not good conscience. Then along came the skepticism of David Hume and the hyper-skepticism of postmodernism, and the concept of an objective, discoverable, universal natural law became as outdated as phlogiston and spontaneous generation.
VanDrunen acknowledges the decline of natural law since its Scholastic heydays. He admits that "appeals to natural law actually made more sense in a pre-Enlightenment, pre-liberal Christendom context" and that "the present social context surely exacerbates the difficulty of constructing good natural law appeals." (Location 7134, 7141.) The theory limped into the Modernist era but then "the Enlightenment emphasis upon historical consciousness and the postmodern emphasis upon contextual relativity have generated much greater skepticism than in the pre-modern world toward appeals to a universal morality derived from human nature." (Loc. 7138.) Nowadays, natural law suffers both an ontological and epistemological crisis. Secular man doubts that natural law even exists (i.e., it has no ontological foundation), and even it did exist, secular man doubts that there is any rational way of discovering it (i.e., it has no epistemological foundation).
VanDrunen's only ontological defense of natural law is an appeal to Scripture: he knows natural law exists because the Bible tells him so. But that does not cut it in the civil kingdom because, according to VanDrunen himself, appeals to Scripture are neither authoritative nor persuasive there. VanDrunen's epistemological problem is even worse because, according to Calvin, Scripture teaches that fallen man's capacity to discern natural law lies in "a corrupted and shapeless ruin." (Loc. 1790.) So now VanDrunen has the double whammy of (1) an appeal to Scripture that the civil kingdom does not accept, and (2) Scripture teaching that secular man's ability to discover natural law (assuming it exists) is corrupted.
With nowhere to run, VanDrunen punts on a secular defense for natural law theory. He writes, "Natural law arguments have always been easier to dispute than to defend, and this promises to be a major task for future exponents...." (Loc. 7143.) But its not as if the Enlightenment began only yesterday. Natural law proponents have had hundreds of years to produce a secular defense of the theory and they've come up empty. VanDrunen provides no basis for expecting that future exponents of natural law will have any more success than their predecessors.
Moral, ethical and policy decisions are being made here and now in the civil kingdom. Christians are not to participate in this process by citing the authority of Scripture, says VanDrunen, but instead must cite the authority of natural law which, in the minds of secular men, either does not exist or is not knowable. Consequently, Christians following VanDrunen's advice will have no credible arguments in the public square unless and until they come up with a colorable defense of natural law theory.
Don't hold your breath.
September 4, 2010
Read this for a review I was asked to write for the SBET. Promising subject matter, but very poorly handled. A narrow and undefended (indefensible I would suggest) theological agenda drives the historical exposition, which thus ends up doing violence to the actual history. The gist: the Reformers' theology contained a strict (Enlightenment-style) separation between church and state, a limitation of the Church to only "spiritual" affairs, and a public sphere governed by natural law alone. Unfortunately, being men of their time, they never consistently applied their true beliefs, which were finally uncovered and applied consistently by their followers several hundred years later. But then the salutary work of these followers (such as James Henley Thornwell) was almost immediately undone by the destructive teachings of "neo-Calvinism," with its notion of "faith for all of life."
If you're really interested, my disgustingly thorough 40,000-word review can be found in installments at www.swordandploughshare.com; or you can read the short (3,400-word) version in the upcoming SBET.
If you're really interested, my disgustingly thorough 40,000-word review can be found in installments at www.swordandploughshare.com; or you can read the short (3,400-word) version in the upcoming SBET.
December 14, 2022
This book is thoroughly researched, written well (albeit victim of the dullness inherent in academic writing), and does well to make clear what the limits of the study are. This is *not* a defense of two-kingdoms or natural law theology, but a historical analysis of them. It generally keeps to those bounds well.
There were however significant weaknesses in VanDrunen's case. Firstly, the distinguishing features of two-kingdoms theology was not adequately stated, so that the elements which are held in common with other views are seen as akin to two-kingdoms. For instance, in the analysis of John Cotton we're told that it may be surprising to hear Cotton being labeled as a two-kingdom theologian, but in actual fact he did affirm the distinction between the civil magistrate and the church.... So what? Even Greg Bahnsen in his 'Theonomy in Christian Ethics' has a whole chapter on the distinction and division of the two spheres - this is not a distinct R2K doctrine. It implies that those of other views must be caeseropapists.
Secondly, there were several points where necessary analysis was lacking. What did calvin mean by one kingdom being 'internal' and the other 'external'? If natural law and mosaic law are fundamentally in agreement what does a practical example of applying natural law not mosaic law in the civic sphere look like? Why not deal with how defenders of natural law usage which are analysed in this book affirmed obviously unjust institutions like American slavery, does this expose a weakness in the tradition? If the 1788 revision brought the WCF more inline with R2K doctrines, why did the original framers hold the establishmentarian positions that they did?... Maybe the R2K position was not as concretely in place as VanDrunen presents. Lastly, when Ockham made the statement that natural law applies to the civil realm, what is that in contradistinction to? It seems VanDrunen assumes it means 'they must use natural law AND NOT SCRIPTURE' when it reality it seems a lot more likely that he means a nation is not only legitimate if it uses scripture, as plenty of nations exist that have only natural law.
Thirdly, not so much a weakness in the book itself but in the theology it analyses. The book exposes some of the ludicrous statements necessary to uphold the doctrines therein. 'Christ' referring to 'redemptive' work aside from the civil realm not only is incoherent with the word Christ (from Messiah) literally meaning King/Ruler but also who is 'the Lord's Christ' dealing with in Psalm 2? Kings of the earth. Rulers in the civil sphere. It is Christ demanding justice of them not merely a preserving 'Logos'. Or when it was said that natural law can affirm the existence of 'a god' but not the reality of the incarnation and therefore nations shouldn't have such doctrines in their constitutions. What nonsense. To think a Christian should rejoice that the truth of God's word be removed from a society because it isn't a discernable fact from nature. Again - Psalm 2.
It seems ultimately this exposes the fact that the R2K doctrine's actual opponent is postmillennialism. The fundamental beef is on the question is Christ redeeming this world? The postmill answers yes and thus disqualifies himself from R2K theology. This is somewhat hinted at by VanDrunen's analysis of John Cotton and his cringe attempt to undermines Cotton's exegesis of Revelation 11.
There were however significant weaknesses in VanDrunen's case. Firstly, the distinguishing features of two-kingdoms theology was not adequately stated, so that the elements which are held in common with other views are seen as akin to two-kingdoms. For instance, in the analysis of John Cotton we're told that it may be surprising to hear Cotton being labeled as a two-kingdom theologian, but in actual fact he did affirm the distinction between the civil magistrate and the church.... So what? Even Greg Bahnsen in his 'Theonomy in Christian Ethics' has a whole chapter on the distinction and division of the two spheres - this is not a distinct R2K doctrine. It implies that those of other views must be caeseropapists.
Secondly, there were several points where necessary analysis was lacking. What did calvin mean by one kingdom being 'internal' and the other 'external'? If natural law and mosaic law are fundamentally in agreement what does a practical example of applying natural law not mosaic law in the civic sphere look like? Why not deal with how defenders of natural law usage which are analysed in this book affirmed obviously unjust institutions like American slavery, does this expose a weakness in the tradition? If the 1788 revision brought the WCF more inline with R2K doctrines, why did the original framers hold the establishmentarian positions that they did?... Maybe the R2K position was not as concretely in place as VanDrunen presents. Lastly, when Ockham made the statement that natural law applies to the civil realm, what is that in contradistinction to? It seems VanDrunen assumes it means 'they must use natural law AND NOT SCRIPTURE' when it reality it seems a lot more likely that he means a nation is not only legitimate if it uses scripture, as plenty of nations exist that have only natural law.
Thirdly, not so much a weakness in the book itself but in the theology it analyses. The book exposes some of the ludicrous statements necessary to uphold the doctrines therein. 'Christ' referring to 'redemptive' work aside from the civil realm not only is incoherent with the word Christ (from Messiah) literally meaning King/Ruler but also who is 'the Lord's Christ' dealing with in Psalm 2? Kings of the earth. Rulers in the civil sphere. It is Christ demanding justice of them not merely a preserving 'Logos'. Or when it was said that natural law can affirm the existence of 'a god' but not the reality of the incarnation and therefore nations shouldn't have such doctrines in their constitutions. What nonsense. To think a Christian should rejoice that the truth of God's word be removed from a society because it isn't a discernable fact from nature. Again - Psalm 2.
It seems ultimately this exposes the fact that the R2K doctrine's actual opponent is postmillennialism. The fundamental beef is on the question is Christ redeeming this world? The postmill answers yes and thus disqualifies himself from R2K theology. This is somewhat hinted at by VanDrunen's analysis of John Cotton and his cringe attempt to undermines Cotton's exegesis of Revelation 11.
October 5, 2022
A very helpful book, written in a clear style and yet academic in its approach and explicit in its goals, restraints, and organization.
VanDrunen provides definitions and important characteristics of natural law and two kingdoms thinking, then explores the development of those characteristics over time. He begins with Augustine and anonymous early church letters like the Epistle of Diognetus, then proceeds through the medieval theologians to Aquinas, the Reformers, the Reformed Orthodox, and American Presbyterians.
He explores the way Kuyper's ambiguous rhetoric opened the door to radical departures from the NL/2K tradition in Barth and Dooyeweerd, and finally argues that a similar ambiguity in Van Til developed into outright theonomy (Bahnsen) as well as unwitting recovery of NL/2K (Kline) in the next generation.
Finally he observes some general strengths and weaknesses of NL/2K as tools for social thought.
Again, this was a clear, well-ordered, and thorough book. I understand that it's controversial, but VanDrunen is straightforward, ready to admit difficulties in his position, and direct in his critique of his opponents. I am convinced this book would be helpful even for skeptics wanting to understand the NL/2K side of this controversy, the question of winning the argument aside.
Thanks to Kevin S. for this one.
VanDrunen provides definitions and important characteristics of natural law and two kingdoms thinking, then explores the development of those characteristics over time. He begins with Augustine and anonymous early church letters like the Epistle of Diognetus, then proceeds through the medieval theologians to Aquinas, the Reformers, the Reformed Orthodox, and American Presbyterians.
He explores the way Kuyper's ambiguous rhetoric opened the door to radical departures from the NL/2K tradition in Barth and Dooyeweerd, and finally argues that a similar ambiguity in Van Til developed into outright theonomy (Bahnsen) as well as unwitting recovery of NL/2K (Kline) in the next generation.
Finally he observes some general strengths and weaknesses of NL/2K as tools for social thought.
Again, this was a clear, well-ordered, and thorough book. I understand that it's controversial, but VanDrunen is straightforward, ready to admit difficulties in his position, and direct in his critique of his opponents. I am convinced this book would be helpful even for skeptics wanting to understand the NL/2K side of this controversy, the question of winning the argument aside.
Thanks to Kevin S. for this one.
September 11, 2022
A fascinating historical study of natural law theology and 2-kingdom theology in the Reformed tradition. The author clearly situates these 2 doctrines within the Reformed camp and shows how a large part of the Reformed camp went away from these traditions (or ignored them) in the 19th and 20th centuries to a more 1 kingdom paradigm where creation is being redeemed rather than merely preserved, thus adding an eschatological flavor to creation into which the church and Scripture speak and rule.
Part of his argument is that more modern version of 2K theology (formulated in a religiously plural and classically liberal context), by using jure divino presbyterianism and spirituality of the church, are more consistent than the 2K theology of the earlier Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries (formulated in a Christendom context) that still allowed civil magistrate involvement in church matters and church involvement in civil matters.
If you are looking for a Biblical defense of either natural law or 2K, then look elsewhere as this is a historical study.
Part of his argument is that more modern version of 2K theology (formulated in a religiously plural and classically liberal context), by using jure divino presbyterianism and spirituality of the church, are more consistent than the 2K theology of the earlier Reformers of the 16th and 17th centuries (formulated in a Christendom context) that still allowed civil magistrate involvement in church matters and church involvement in civil matters.
If you are looking for a Biblical defense of either natural law or 2K, then look elsewhere as this is a historical study.
May 27, 2017
Sometime a bit tedious, but overall a very good survey of two kingdoms and natural law theory relative to the evolution of Reformed thought. For most of the book the author seemed to be attempting a non-biased journalistic approach. I would like to have seen more of the author's convictions earlier in the book. Up until the concluding chapter there was a flavor of his position, but more of a point-counterpoint may have been more instructive.
October 8, 2025
Helpful book from VanDrunen. Well researched, and tedious at times. But, worth the effort.
Read
February 17, 2020A very meticulous and thorough book, suffering perhaps from some conflation of church-state with two-kingdoms (though I’m no expert to judge). Reading this made me very glad that I am not a Presbyterian, nor heavily invested in the history of Reformed Orthodox thought.
May 9, 2011
Summary:
VanDrunen examines the idea of two kingdoms as it has existed in church history, especially in Reformed theology. Basically, VanDrunen demonstrates that the following ideas have been affirmed throughout Reformed thought (and prior: Augustine, Aquinas, Ockham, etc): There are two kingdoms, one redemptive ruled by Christ as redeemer, the other temporal ruled by "Christ" or God as creator, sustainer. Natural law is the standard for rule in the civil/temporal kingdom and Scripture is the rule in the redemptive kingdom. Christian activity in culture is predicated on common grace and the natural law. However, some of the prescriptions the Mosaic law (e.g. the Decalogue) are particular instantiations of natural law (it's not clear whether all prescriptions in the Bible would be viewed as instances of natural law). The church belongs to the redemptive kingdom and earthly governments to the civil kingdom.
Yet almost universally, Reformed theologians have not applied this doctrine consistently. Each person has, in some way, mixed the two kingdoms. Thus, along the way, VanDrunen charges the persons with inconsistency. Some of these inconsistencies can be reconciled (e.g. by understanding the way in which some understood statecraft to be soulcraft); nevertheless, some inconsistencies remain (e.g. the influence of the Consistory upon the government in Geneva).
Starting with Dooyeweerd (but germinating in some Kuyperian ideas), Reformed thought turned away from the two kingdoms doctrine to what VanDrunen classifies as "neo-Calvinism." Neo-Calvinism teaches only the redemptive kingdom and gives the cultural activities of Christians an "eschatological burden." Christian activity in the culture is predicated in the redemptive work of Christ. Thus, Christians are to transform culture.
VanDrunen indicates that neo-Calvinism has become dominant in modern Reformed social thought, but recently there have been several defenders of the traditional understanding of two-kingdoms (with a more consistent application of course).
Thoughts:
It's hard for me to evaluate this book, not having much knowledge of the history which the book covers. If I take it for granted that VanDrunen has accurately represented the ideas of, for instance, Calvin, Turretin, Althusius, etc. then I would give the book four stars. But if VanDrunen has allowed his theological/political agenda to distort his understanding of these persons (as some have charged) then it certainly doesn't deserve a high rating.
That VanDrunen charges virtually every thinker he examines with inconsistency strikes me as surprising to say the least. While I would have to agree with some of the inconsistencies that VanDrunen points out, I'm not sure that correcting these inconsistencies would require one to cast the temporal kingdom in quite so secular terms as VanDrunen and Darryl Hart might prefer. The thought occurs to me "Is it possible that VanDrunen sees so many inconsistencies simply because he is operating with a slightly different model of two kingdoms than the Reformers? And if so, does this make VanDrunen another neo-Calvinist?" ;) I'm not sure, I'll have to do some more studying. This book should definitely be read by Reformed persons interested in politics.
VanDrunen examines the idea of two kingdoms as it has existed in church history, especially in Reformed theology. Basically, VanDrunen demonstrates that the following ideas have been affirmed throughout Reformed thought (and prior: Augustine, Aquinas, Ockham, etc): There are two kingdoms, one redemptive ruled by Christ as redeemer, the other temporal ruled by "Christ" or God as creator, sustainer. Natural law is the standard for rule in the civil/temporal kingdom and Scripture is the rule in the redemptive kingdom. Christian activity in culture is predicated on common grace and the natural law. However, some of the prescriptions the Mosaic law (e.g. the Decalogue) are particular instantiations of natural law (it's not clear whether all prescriptions in the Bible would be viewed as instances of natural law). The church belongs to the redemptive kingdom and earthly governments to the civil kingdom.
Yet almost universally, Reformed theologians have not applied this doctrine consistently. Each person has, in some way, mixed the two kingdoms. Thus, along the way, VanDrunen charges the persons with inconsistency. Some of these inconsistencies can be reconciled (e.g. by understanding the way in which some understood statecraft to be soulcraft); nevertheless, some inconsistencies remain (e.g. the influence of the Consistory upon the government in Geneva).
Starting with Dooyeweerd (but germinating in some Kuyperian ideas), Reformed thought turned away from the two kingdoms doctrine to what VanDrunen classifies as "neo-Calvinism." Neo-Calvinism teaches only the redemptive kingdom and gives the cultural activities of Christians an "eschatological burden." Christian activity in the culture is predicated in the redemptive work of Christ. Thus, Christians are to transform culture.
VanDrunen indicates that neo-Calvinism has become dominant in modern Reformed social thought, but recently there have been several defenders of the traditional understanding of two-kingdoms (with a more consistent application of course).
Thoughts:
It's hard for me to evaluate this book, not having much knowledge of the history which the book covers. If I take it for granted that VanDrunen has accurately represented the ideas of, for instance, Calvin, Turretin, Althusius, etc. then I would give the book four stars. But if VanDrunen has allowed his theological/political agenda to distort his understanding of these persons (as some have charged) then it certainly doesn't deserve a high rating.
That VanDrunen charges virtually every thinker he examines with inconsistency strikes me as surprising to say the least. While I would have to agree with some of the inconsistencies that VanDrunen points out, I'm not sure that correcting these inconsistencies would require one to cast the temporal kingdom in quite so secular terms as VanDrunen and Darryl Hart might prefer. The thought occurs to me "Is it possible that VanDrunen sees so many inconsistencies simply because he is operating with a slightly different model of two kingdoms than the Reformers? And if so, does this make VanDrunen another neo-Calvinist?" ;) I'm not sure, I'll have to do some more studying. This book should definitely be read by Reformed persons interested in politics.
August 1, 2014
3.5.
Took a very long time to get through this. Ultimately, this book is like a map to a ton of writers/theologians, giving you a taste of what they've written (or attempting to synthesize their thought on the subject) and perhaps points one to read up more on this theologian or that one. I was more interested in a biblical approach to the subject rather than a historical overview, and I found that out quickly--that this wasn't quite doing it for me. Do I read VanDrunen's "A Biblical Case for Natural Law" and was really disappointed; would have really liked a biblical treatment of the subject as long as this book. Still this book does have the value of surveying the writings and thoughts of many theologians over several centuries on the subject, and helped as a spring board into some of these other theologians' writings. In short, the books has its value, but helped me to understand that this book was not the approach to this subject that I was looking for.
Took a very long time to get through this. Ultimately, this book is like a map to a ton of writers/theologians, giving you a taste of what they've written (or attempting to synthesize their thought on the subject) and perhaps points one to read up more on this theologian or that one. I was more interested in a biblical approach to the subject rather than a historical overview, and I found that out quickly--that this wasn't quite doing it for me. Do I read VanDrunen's "A Biblical Case for Natural Law" and was really disappointed; would have really liked a biblical treatment of the subject as long as this book. Still this book does have the value of surveying the writings and thoughts of many theologians over several centuries on the subject, and helped as a spring board into some of these other theologians' writings. In short, the books has its value, but helped me to understand that this book was not the approach to this subject that I was looking for.
Want to read
August 24, 2016
December 19, 2014
Impressive in scope of review of history of two kingdoms and natural law theology in Reformed tradition. On occasion can be condescending to us mere mortals. Appears to view biblicists with a distrustful eye. Still tries to give this age a positive role, though not as extreme as some neo-Calvinists he discusses.
October 27, 2011
great idea...great overview chapters, but in my estimation, a bit scattered.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews