Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 1 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 1
David Bercot says the “doctrine of the two kingdoms” was “universally believed by the primitive Christians” and is now “almost totally…lost”; what specific parts of his definition (a real present kingdom, concrete laws/values/leadership, and separation from the world order) feel most unfamiliar—or most resisted—in your own church background?
Another way to ask: Bercot says early Christians believed God’s kingdom is real right now, has clear ways of living and leaders, and stays separate from the world’s system. Which of those ideas feels most strange or hardest to accept in your church background, and why?

Direct Answer Based on Bercot’s definition, the parts most likely to feel unfamiliar or resisted in many church backgrounds are (1) treating God’s kingdom as a real, present “realm” with concrete laws and leadership, and (2) insisting it must stay separate from the world’s order and cannot be “mixed.”

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot says the doctrine is “almost totally…lost” today and that many churches only “pay lip service” while still trying to “mix these two kingdoms together.”
  • He defines God’s kingdom as “here and now in the true disciples of Jesus Christ,” not only future or after death.
  • He stresses it is “not…spiritual or symbolic or figurative…It’s something real…concrete with its own set of laws…values…leadership, and…worldview.”
  • He says God’s people live “as aliens, as foreigners…already citizens of another kingdom,” with “a whole different set of laws” and outlook.
  • He argues most professing Christians are “thoroughly part of this world—its government, its mindset, its commercial organizations…ever since Constantine.”
Discussion Follow-ups Which part feels hardest to accept in practice: concrete kingdom “laws,” or separation from politics/entertainment/commerce? Why?