# Good resources on the two kingdoms?



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Feb 5, 2008)

Can anyone suggest good resources (preferably Puritan) on the two kingdoms?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Feb 5, 2008)

This is post-Puritan, but of that strain: _Two Cities, Two Loves_, by James Montgomery Boice.


----------



## crhoades (Feb 5, 2008)

Are you looking for Puritan political theory primarily or their take on the two kingdoms? How are you interpretting two-kingdom theory? The reason I ask is that you'll run into disagreement on the definition of it. I take it to be a more Lutheran concept with a sharp distinction between the sacred and the secular. Historic Calvinist/Puritan/Reformed while differentiating between Church and State doesn't keep them from each other. They have (had) a greater view of Christendom than what typically is propounded by two-kingdom supporters today.

As always, I would always have someone's first stop into the Reformed view of the civil sphere/magistrate be here.

Sorry for being so indirect. I thought about just posting a link to this resource with a smiley face but thought I should probably be more helpful than that!


----------



## crhoades (Feb 5, 2008)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> This is post-Puritan, but of that strain: _Two Cities, Two Loves_, by James Montgomery Boice.


 
Thanks for posting that! Forgot about that book since it went out of print. Just ordered one used from Amazon. From what I remember isn't it Boice's treatment of Augustine's City of God?


----------



## Poimen (Feb 5, 2008)

Calvin's _Institutes_ Book 4, Chapter 20, especially sections 1-2 & 14.

Go here to read it online.


----------



## Bygracealone (Feb 5, 2008)

crhoades said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> > This is post-Puritan, but of that strain: _Two Cities, Two Loves_, by James Montgomery Boice.
> ...



Though pre-Puritan, City of God by Augustine is what I was going to recommend.


----------



## mvdm (Feb 5, 2008)

Here's an article entitled "Puritan Jurisprudence: A Study in Subtantive Biblical Law":

Puritan Jurisprudence: A Study In Substantive Biblical Law


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 5, 2008)

BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:


> Can anyone suggest good resources (preferably Puritan) on the two kingdoms?



Depends also on which brand of Puritanism. John Winthrop and Co. are often accused of blurring the distinction, given Winthrop's political covenanting with God.

One of the Scottish covenanters, Melville I think, told the tyrant there were "two kingdoms" in Scotland. Of course, he had a differnet nuance than modern 2kingdom guys. He wanted to get the State out of the church. Nowadays many want to get [-]moral standards[/-] the church out of the State.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 5, 2008)

Several of Darryl Hart's books have a lot of doctrinal and historical reflections on the two kingdoms, as well as on the practical implications in many areas.


----------



## crhoades (Feb 5, 2008)

Me Died Blue said:


> Several of Darryl Hart's books have a lot of doctrinal and historical reflections on the two kingdoms, as well as on the practical implications in many areas.


 
The title says it all: A Secular Faith: Why Christianity Favors the Separation of Church and State


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Feb 5, 2008)

What I'm looking for is the Lutheran aspect of, "...every person is a subject of two kingdoms, one of which is spiritual, the other earthly."

I need good books on that.



crhoades said:


> Are you looking for Puritan political theory primarily or their take on the two kingdoms? How are you interpretting two-kingdom theory? The reason I ask is that you'll run into disagreement on the definition of it. I take it to be a more Lutheran concept with a sharp distinction between the sacred and the secular. Historic Calvinist/Puritan/Reformed while differentiating between Church and State doesn't keep them from each other. They have (had) a greater view of Christendom than what typically is propounded by two-kingdom supporters today.
> 
> As always, I would always have someone's first stop into the Reformed view of the civil sphere/magistrate be here.
> 
> Sorry for being so indirect. I thought about just posting a link to this resource with a smiley face but thought I should probably be more helpful than that!


----------



## KMK (Feb 5, 2008)

BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:


> What I'm looking for is the Lutheran aspect of, "...every person is a subject of two kingdoms, one of which is spiritual, the other earthly."



I am not an expert, but doesn't this sound like 'Thomism'? Isn't this what the RCs believe?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 5, 2008)

Me Died Blue said:


> Several of Darryl Hart's books have a lot of doctrinal and historical reflections on the two kingdoms, as well as on the practical implications in many areas.



One atheist who reviewed the book said atheists have nothing to worry about. Given that book's arguments, no need to fight abortion. Not being mean, just quoting the atheist reviewer who happened to agree with the book. 

I believe in separation of church and state, but I don't believe in the separation of morality and state.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 5, 2008)

KMK said:


> BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:
> 
> 
> > What I'm looking for is the Lutheran aspect of, "...every person is a subject of two kingdoms, one of which is spiritual, the other earthly."
> ...



Ironically enough, RCs maintain a form of 2kingdomz, but they dont' have the schizophrenia on politics that non-RCs do. RCs (rightly) understand that if you have the kingdom of the right hand and the kingdom of the left hand, they have to have the same *source* of morality. Technically, Lutherans and Klineans affirm the same thing, but they can't convince me of their applications.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Feb 5, 2008)

BuddyOfDavidClarkson said:


> Can anyone suggest good resources
> (preferably Puritan) on the two kingdoms?



If you are looking for the Lutheran aspect you won't find it in Puritan works. Royalist/pietist Anglicans are closer to the Lutheran view, but the Puritans believed in the distinction and connection of Church and State. The clearest explanation of this view is given in George Gillespie's 111 Propositions, which may be found in vol. 1 of his Works.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 5, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Me Died Blue said:
> 
> 
> > Several of Darryl Hart's books have a lot of doctrinal and historical reflections on the two kingdoms, as well as on the practical implications in many areas.
> ...



I'm still studying various understandings of natural law, its nature (no pun intended) and its role, and I have yet to buy _A Secular Faith_ (as far as Hart goes, I've read his _The Lost Soul of American Protestantism_ and some of his material on Machen). Even so, it seems like with the abortion issue in particular, a plausible case can potentially be made from Genesis 9 that from the Christian worldview, even natural law and general revelation clearly condemn murder by a standard that binds the world.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 6, 2008)

Me Died Blue said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > Me Died Blue said:
> ...



But you are using Scripture to bolster your view in natural law. Remember in the public square, if you are a natural law theorist, you cannot do that. 

And Genesis 9 is too vague to be used for jurisprudence. It says nothing about a host of capital crimes that Moses would make more clear (and not just "civil Israel" crimes, but crimes that were on English and American lawbooks).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 6, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> But you are using Scripture to bolster your view in natural law. Remember in the public square, if you are a natural law theorist, you cannot do that.



I wondered if someone might mention that!  If I'm reading things rightly so far, it seems like the argument goes something along the lines of believing that from a Christian worldview, not only is that command universally binding because of Genesis 9, but also that as much is clear enough simply in the general revelation of extra-biblical natural law - or In other words, that Genesis 9 explains and accounts for (to us as believers) why most of the world's civilizations, Christian or not, forbid murder in one way or another.



Ivanhoe said:


> And Genesis 9 is too vague to be used for jurisprudence. It says nothing about a host of capital crimes that Moses would make more clear (and not just "civil Israel" crimes, but crimes that were on English and American lawbooks).



Actually, it seems like that's precisely why many natural law advocates today are significantly libertarian in their political views; since libertarianism as a political philosophy essentially limits the civil law to applications of the "your freedom ends at my nose" principle, and indeed, that's the only principle that can be drawn from Genesis 9:6. So I agree that it is too vague to support many of the later-declared capital crimes; but indeed, even with those that were on English and American lawbooks at one time or another, I'd bet most libertarians wouldn't exactly be in favor of any of them that go beyond the above principal.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 6, 2008)

*Contemporary Two-Kingdoms Resources*

Here


----------



## timmopussycat (Feb 6, 2008)

crhoades said:


> As always, I would always have someone's first stop into the Reformed view of the civil sphere/magistrate be here.



This doesn't load for me. 



crhoades said:


> Sorry for being so indirect. I thought about just posting a link to this resource with a smiley face but thought I should probably be more helpful than that!



That's not a "helpful" resource actually. This one is better.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 6, 2008)

Me Died Blue said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > But you are using Scripture to bolster your view in natural law. Remember in the public square, if you are a natural law theorist, you cannot do that.
> ...



I don't dispute that unbelievers have a knowledge of morality, especially pertaining to murder. I simply would add that they suppress that knowledge.



Ivanhoe said:


> And Genesis 9 is too vague to be used for jurisprudence. It says nothing about a host of capital crimes that Moses would make more clear (and not just "civil Israel" crimes, but crimes that were on English and American lawbooks).





> Actually, it seems like that's precisely why many natural law advocates today are significantly libertarian in their political views; since libertarianism as a political philosophy essentially limits the civil law to applications of the "your freedom ends at my nose" principle, and indeed, that's the only principle that can be drawn from Genesis 9:6. So I agree that it is too vague to support many of the later-declared capital crimes; but indeed, even with those that were on English and American lawbooks at one time or another, I'd bet most libertarians wouldn't exactly be in favor of any of them that go beyond the above principal.



My point was that Genesis 9 doesn't tell you how to punish--and justify the punishment as a just punishment--rape, incest, kidnapping, not supporting McCain, etc.

And many natural law theorists usually have good political theories. But note that when Calvin used his "law of nations" he presupposed and drew from the legacy of Christendom, Christian political theory. In other words, he wasn't being neutral with respect to the light of nature.


----------

