# Augustine and the Two-Kingdom Doctrine



## Casey (Jun 26, 2008)

It has been suggested that Augustine's city of God/city of man distinction is synonymous with the two kingdoms (or at least an early formation of the doctrine). Maybe I haven't read enough Augustine (which would be true!), but I don't find this to be accurate. For Augustine the Christian isn't a member of both, right? But in the Lutheran/WSC two-kingdom doctrine, Christians are indeed members of both. For Augustine, the "city of man" was a description of the pagan unbelievers, those who do not love God, not of civil government _per se_, right? I could very well be mistaken.


----------



## MW (Jun 26, 2008)

CaseyBessette said:


> I could very well be mistaken.



I don't think you are. Augustine's two cities are in conflict. Further, his city of God is also a civilisation of men and women exhibiting heavenly virtues, which effectively includes the two kingdoms in it.


----------



## danmpem (Jun 26, 2008)

I have learned to take the bulk of Augustine's imagery with only so many grains of salt. His metaphors of cities, this, that, or the other thing are exactly that - metaphors and images to make a particular point about a particular part of the Kingdom of God, paganism, or whatever. But analogies ought to be evaluated in the context they are presented.

When I am teaching someone how to use a computer, I sometimes compare a computer to a car in very simple ways. When I talk about some parts of a computer and relate them to major parts of a car, people start to understand. But if the car analogy were carried out as far as it could possibly go, it would fail; because, in reality, a car is NOTHING like a computer.

I think that's what you were going for, or maybe I misunderstood you.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 26, 2008)

Casey,

Someone with an ontological separation between time and eternity would have been incapable of supporting the magistrate punishing heretics. Augustine supported, for instance, civil penalties for heretics, and could not (if we take him to be a thoughtful man) have held to an ontological difference between time an eternity, as (to a certain extent) the so-called two kingdoms view may tend to do.

All that to say, Augustine was a duelist, not a dualist  (insert tongue in cheek)

Adam





CaseyBessette said:


> It has been suggested that Augustine's city of God/city of man distinction is synonymous with the two kingdoms (or at least an early formation of the doctrine). Maybe I haven't read enough Augustine (which would be true!), but I don't find this to be accurate. For Augustine the Christian isn't a member of both, right? But in the Lutheran/WSC two-kingdom doctrine, Christians are indeed members of both. For Augustine, the "city of man" was a description of the pagan unbelievers, those who do not love God, not of civil government _per se_, right? I could very well be mistaken.


----------



## Casey (Jun 26, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> All that to say, Augustine was a duelist, not a dualist  (insert tongue in cheek)


Nice


----------



## Casey (Jun 26, 2008)

danmpem said:


> I have learned to take the bulk of Augustine's imagery with only so many grains of salt. His metaphors of cities, this, that, or the other thing are exactly that - metaphors and images to make a particular point about a particular part of the Kingdom of God, paganism, or whatever. But analogies ought to be evaluated in the context they are presented.
> 
> When I am teaching someone how to use a computer, I sometimes compare a computer to a car in very simple ways. When I talk about some parts of a computer and relate them to major parts of a car, people start to understand. But if the car analogy were carried out as far as it could possibly go, it would fail; because, in reality, a car is NOTHING like a computer.
> 
> I think that's what you were going for, or maybe I misunderstood you.


I think I see what you're saying.  But it seems to me that, for Augustine, it's not a simple metaphor. Scripture speaks of the sons of God and the sons of men; the city of God and, by implication, the city of men. So, for example, I count my family to be members of the city of God and not the city of men -- we're not both. This isn't to deny the legitimacy of the state, which is another topic.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 27, 2008)

A very short earlier thread:
Two Kingdoms view and Augustine


----------

