Even for the RPCNA 2k Is Confessional
Posted: September 29, 2010 Filed under: D.G. Hart, Two Kingdom Theology 2 CommentsD.G. Hart explains,
“For the literacy challenged, that means that critics of 2k who insist 2k is outside the bounds of the confession would not even find a home in the RPCNA under the very Blue Banner at least on this point. Now some have tried to say that the revisions still assert the magistrate’s duty to suppress blasphemy and heresy. But given what the American divines said and did not say, and given that the Covenanters no longer insist on magisterial responsibility for punishing idolatry, this argument is even less believable than the one about George Washington being an orthodox Protestant.”
Read the whole article here.
Gospel-Centered Musings 
Wrong answer, Dewalt. Wrong answer, Hart.
The RP Church does not promote 2k theology, but maintains the mediatorial kingship of Christ over both realms- civil and ecclesiastical. Even the Westminster Divines would see that the role of the state and the role of the church are different and distinct (except for Erastians). Just because they have different roles does not mean that there are two kingdoms. The only 2k theology that the Scriptures promote is the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of Christ. I am for the one kingdom- Jesus Christ’s kingdom. Messiah the Prince is ruler over all realms of heaven and earth.
Reformed Presbyterian Testimony:
23.4: “Every nation ought to recognize the divine institution of civil government, the sovereignty of God exercised by Jesus Christ and its duty to rule the civil affairs of men in accordance with the will of God. It should enter into covenant with Christ and serve to advance his kingdom on earth.
23.5 “We reject the view that nations have no corporate responsibility for acknowledging and obeying Christ.”
The RPCNA simply rejects a portion of WCF 26:3. That part of the confession wasn’t contrary to a traditional 2K view. While it is contrary to the position that Hart teaches (which we can call “R2K” to distinguish it from what Calvin, Turretin, and the Westminster divines held), he knows very well (ask him yourself) that the RPCNA’s views on the establishment of religion and enforcement of the two tables are directly in conflict with his views