Dr. Joe Boot of the Ezra Institute on Two Kingdom Theology
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 พ.ย. 2024
- Just one topic today as we had one guest, Dr. Joe Boot of the Ezra Institute (www.ezrainstit...) up in Canada, pastor of the Westminster Chapel, and author of The Mission of God.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudio... for more of A&O ministry's content
For James White's political content, click here:
www.bitchute.c...
Right, first off, before anything else - would you just LOOK at Dr. Boot’s room. Look at that exquisite oak-panelling. My word. Beautiful.
I know right?????????
.. it’s so good to be true.. I think he must be using a green screen..
@@anjithjames3120 nope, I’ve been in the room!
@@anjithjames3120 That is not a green screen. It is a real room.
Respectfully, I love these clips for being able to take some of the training off of Dr white and get right to the meat of his points.
Ps, I love Dr Boot.
Thanks Dr Joe Boot To Defend The Truth Of Young Earth Creation,You Have Destroyed IP In Your Debate With Him ❤️
When did Dr. Boot debate IP regarding Young Earth Creationism?
I see two kingdoms. The kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness.
Can someone please clarify the relationship (if there is one) between two-kingdoms theology and kingdom theology and kingdom-now theology? As I understand it, two-kingdoms theology is an Anabaptist idea separating the religious sphere from the secular realm, kingdom theology relies on inaugurated eschatology to assert that the Kingdom of God is "already-but-not-yet", and kingdom-now theology is the notion that God needs Christians' help in taking back control of the world from Satan. Is this right?
I was surprised this wasn't dogging dispensationalism. We hold to "two kingdoms" in a sense, but only that there is the universal reign of God eternally, with complete sovereignty, and there is God's reign within creation through His mediatorial kingdom on earth.
I was barely familiar with this term before. But I realize I started with this presumption when I started to believe in Christ. The obvious moral decay of the past decade has disabused me of this, though. I was already uncomfortable with the idea of being too accepting of the unchurched who had a baseline agreement with me on politics. But now even so called conservatives are becoming pro homosexual and pro trans even. I wanted to disengage from politics because I thought I was like the soldier getting involved in civilian affairs. But perhaps my understanding of that scripture was warped by a two kingdom assumption. Instead, maybe I should make sure all my politics are Christ centered, and just understand my faith is not in the state if things don't go my way. Because we wrestle not against flesh and blood...man I just realized I took that verse with a two kingdom assumption as well
Traditional Two Kingdoms theology is the orthodox teaching of the magisterial Reformation with Luther and Calvin. The new version espoused by Van Drunen's version has been typically referred to as Radical Two Kingdom theology within the Reformed tradition or R2K for short.
You are misinformed. Luther and Calvin had distinctly different versions of Two Kingdoms.
@@howardhilliard9286 You're not arguing that either espoused something like what Van Drunen teaches?
I would love to hear Dr. White’s thoughts on Progressive Covenentalism, which is a specific form of NCT coming out of some of the SBC seminaries. Gentry and Wellum covered it in their book Kingdom Through Covenant. It’s gaining some traction, though I believe most people will end up going back to where they came from (either dispensational or CT). Time will tell.
They talked about it in passing when they said new covenant theology has basically replaced dispensationalism for Baptists. I don't know any 1689 types who think that new kingdom theology is correct but it is better than dispensationalism.
James White ascribes to modern reformed baptist covenant theology (see Greg Nichols book). Many RB’s follow 1689 federalism, but James White was turned away from this perspective by one of 1689 feds’ accusing him of not understanding covenant theology. I get why he hasn’t looked into it more. The main difference is the concept of the covenant of works - 1689ers emphasize this covenant. Also, 1689ers state that the covenant of grace was effective by way of promise in the OT but was made a reality under the new covenant - not that the Cov of grace existed under a different “administration” in the OT.
I sympathize with White and Boot when they lament that Christians have greatly neglected wrestling with the application of Scripture to civil government and related cultural issues. I have in mind mistaken views like what is found in the PCA BCO 3-4. "The power of the Church is exclusively spiritual; that of the State includes the exercise of force. The constitution of the Church derives from divine revelation; the constitution of the State must be determined by human reason and the course of providential events." Though the relationship of Scripture to the Church and the State is not the same, nonetheless, our understanding of the State and its role must ultimately be derived from Scripture's ethics.
However, I have significant problems with Boot's proposed alternative. Yes, we must look to Scripture, but we must correctly interpret Scripture, and I don't believe Boot has done so. I believe his structural understanding of how creation relates to the fall and redemption is not quite biblical. Boot rejects the Covenant of Works, which has foundational implications for how he views this matter.
The following is the intro to an analysis I wrote after Boot's debate on Two Kingdoms with Matthew Tuininga, if anyone is interested:
The difference between the two perspectives is largely a difference in understanding covenant theology. One side correctly understands that Adam was placed in a covenant of works wherein his perfect obedience to the law would have earned him the reward of an immutable (thus eternal) life (WCF 4.2, 7.1, 7.2, 19.1; 2LBC 4.2, 6.1, 7.1 - see here). This covenant included obedience to his task of exercising dominion in the garden and out into the whole world. Thus we could say that Adam was laboring in this age for the reward of the age to come (eternal sabbath rest). Adam fell and broke the covenant of works. But God did not immediately commence the final judgment. He delayed it for the sake of the glorification of Christ in the redemption of his bride. So Adam, and all those in Adam, were cursed and lost any hope of earning the reward of the age to come, but they continued to exist in this age. Thus this age was modified by the fall to remove any possibility of reward for labor in this age. At this point, labor was merely to survive. The Noahic Covenant was a formal arrangement to stabilize this modified present age. Its purpose was the common preservation of the world (this age) until the last elect is redeemed and Christ returns (the age to come). The age to come exists in the form of the already/not-yet. As the gospel is proclaimed and hearts are regenerated, the age to come breaks into this age already. The kingdom the saints inherit is not this age/world, but rather the new heavens the new earth (age to come) that Adam was laboring to enter before the fall. Thus we are pilgrims here, suffering in this age, while we await our full redemption in the age to come. This is the correct structure that Tuininga and Van Drunen are working from (expressed in my own words).
Boot, however, rejects this structure. He denies that Adam was working to earn anything. Adam had everything. All he could do was forfeit the life he had. Thus there is no two-age distinction. There is no eternal reward. All Adam was doing was living a life of faithful obedience to the gospel (yes, he said that). Adam, before the fall, was in a covenant of grace with God and this same covenant continued after the fall, with the same mandate to develop creation in faithful obedience to God (for more on monocovenantalism, see here). This same covenant was renewed with Noah. The earth was given to Noah because the whole of creation is for God’s people. Boot holds the standard paedobaptist view that says the Noahic Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. It was a covenant made with the church (Noah and his offspring), not with all of mankind. Thus the fallen world belongs to the church and it is the church’s duty to exercise dominion over it. Non-believers, as non-believers, have no dominion mandate and no claim to this world (there is no mankind “in general”). Christ redeems us and places us back in the garden to continue Adam’s work. We are to continue this mandate until Christ returns, at which point he’ll finish things off by finally removing non-believers from the world we’ve been working to perfect. Non-believers are “accidental” to the world. We should, in essence, proceed as if they are not here. Our dominion over the earth, including our use of the sword, should not accommodate their existence. Not only is the Noahic Covenant the Covenant of Grace, but so is the Mosaic Covenant. That is where Boot gets the idea that we will be cursed in this life for disobedience to our covenant obligations. It’s why he so strongly disagrees with Tuininga’s emphasis on suffering. Suffering is a covenant curse, per Deuteronomy 28. And the idea that we are pilgrims is completely upside down because the whole world belongs to us now and exile/pilgrimage is a Mosaic covenant curse.
So the difference between the two is clearly a difference in covenant structure. Tuininga and Van Drunen depart from standard paedobaptist covenant theology by recognizing that the Noahic and Mosaic Covenants are not the Covenant of Grace. This gives them the freedom to correctly discern how Christians are to live in this present age.
web.archive.org/web/20190730082207/reformedlibertarian.com/articles/theology/two-kingdoms-debate-analysis/
Boot should be avoided. His denial of the covenant of works and his denial of the law-gospel distinction puts him far outside of orthodoxy.
Why not invite David VanDrunen onto Dividing Line and ask questions ... instead of having someone else to "interpret" VanDrunen - esp a Non-Reformed person.
Because he wouldn’t be able to misrepresent two kingdom like he is in this video
Dr. Joe Boot is Reformed. Unless you mean that he is not because he is not a paedobaptist.
Joseph Boot is a Non -Reformed person? Really?
Radical 2k has some issues for sure but it is more or less an extreme view of the 2k view. Luther and Calvin both had a 2k view ,that was more nuanced and allowed for cultural engagement, but understanding rightly what the church’s function in society was to be.
As a fan of both men, many of the implications they lay out for two kingdoms theology I don't think follow at all and are at worst strawman. ❤
Old earth creation destroys the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, and one could argue makes null and void the atonement of Christ for our sins.
How?
@@billyr9162 Did you know Why jesus have to Born from a Woman is because God's covenant to Eve about her Offspring? Please read bible more
they believe we have been Death For Billion of year as our Nature since the first,even God call it "Very Good",so jesus is just death like what we have done for BILLION of years? wow!,Why Believe in REDEMPTION if what happen before is just DEATH TUMOR SICKNESS AND DEATH AGAIN while Revelation is clear that in New heaven and earth THERE WILL BE NO DEATH?!?! Old earther DESTROYS Gospel
@@ManlyServant
I wasn't asking you.
The First atonement that happen in this world is when God kill an animal to skinned it and then Clothed Adam and Eve's body with Animal Skin
Do yourself a favour and read David VanDrunen. Then come back and evaluate Boot's representation of him here.
Is it just me or is the pulpit ginormous
Such misrepresentation of two kingdom theology is behind me.
This issue is easy to deal with when you eliminate "church" from the vocabulary. If "church" and "Christian" are not the names of a people and "Israel" is the only name for God's kingdom Romans 11 makes sense; Gentiles (outsiders) are invited into Israel until all the natural branches return by faith into "Their own tree". Believers need to see themselves from a first century point of view. Gentiles have been made circumcised in the heart and are accepted into Israel (Acts 15/Amos 9:7-12). We have become fellow citizens of Israel and inheritors of the promises with the remnant of Jewish believers! (Ephesians 2:11-3:6 & 4:17). Paul never thought of Himself as anything other than a Jewish man serving the kingdom of Israel. He didn't think of himself as a christian, or an apostle of "the Church", but rather a Jew under the covenant (albeit renewed) and a servant of Yeshuah, the Messiah, the Son Of God in the assembly of God's people, Israel.
Such a misrepresentation of 2K Theology lol
Such a misrepresentation of VanDrunen and two kingdom doctrine 🤦🏼♂️ this was painful.
Comment for algorithm.
Boot butchers the Lord’s prayer ( 19 minute mark)
Why on earth do some Reformed Theologians engage in Arminian Speak like he does when he says Christ’s Kingdom exists when we willingly submit to Him. Christ reigns in Salvation AND Judgement. He either saves you by his Grace or He leaves you in Sin under His wrath. Ancient Kings of the Near East had the Authority to show Mercy or Judge and Punish. They would never say anything so ridiculous as I guess only get to Reign when and if you’ll submit and yield to me. I almost lost my lunch.
Those pesky Anabaptists.
Their fruit tastes much better than Calvin.
Please repent of your heresies and submit to the Holy Orthodox Church.
No. Sola fide.
@@gch8810 Go ahead and search for the words “faith alone” in the scriptures. This is a false dichotomy introduced by western innovation.