Beza on the Two Cities / Kingdoms - TAKE TWO!

[Christusregnat]

Take Two:


This quotation by Beza demonstrates how far removed certain theories of the "Two Kingdoms" are from historic Reformed theology. The context is Beza demonstrating why the civil magistrate must be the keeper of both Tables of the Law, in ways I won't mention so that this doesn't get kicked to the Theonomy subforum. (Thank you to JennyG and her wonderful husband for helping me with bits of the translation). Could all of y'all salty theonomists please refrain from hijacking my thread again!!??

Wherefore, whoever proposes the happiness of men as the chief end in describing official duties, must necessarily miss the mark. Since certainly we say that God himself is to be revered by all, and that all duties, whether public or private, are to redound to his praise and glory. This world is indeed the likeness of a single city, as if encircled by the Ocean as by bulwarks, in which all men are rightly to bring about this one city, which is to proclaim the praises of God. But, now, since the days of Cain and Abel (as Augustine teaches) men have been inticed into two cities by the deceptions of Satan, even these two which are diametrically opposed to each other.1 One, for instance, seeks for her own profit, and depends on her own wisdom. God is either despised by this city, or deceiving herself by her corrupt nature, she maintains a fictitious worship. And therefore she is either entirely deceitful, fashioning whatever religion she can upon such vulgar causes as she can contrive; or even if there are some among them not so utterly senseless and insane, yet they still regard him (from whom they quake in fear, or from whom they anticipate some very great blessing) as being appeased and propitious toward themselves. Such are truly lunatics, who are capable convincing themselves that God is more dimsighted than themselves in choosing and testing his friends. The other, in truth, is a city totally devoted to its Builder, to such an extent that she should consider nothing to be worthy of doing, except such matters as are directed by his voice and command. Likewise, whether public or private, her pursuits are devoted to increasing the glory and praise of God. Moreover, I have displayed that she is not able to be distracted from this, and we will, in truth, say a little more concerning this matter, that we may not only understand the Magistrate's peculiar duty, but also the unique function of that city's duties.

Theodore Beza, Concerning the Punishment of Heretics by the Civil Magistrate

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

bump

 

[KMK]

The only way Beza's quote could demonstrate "how far removed certain theories of the "Two Kingdoms" are from historic Reformed theology," is if it could be shown that Beza's quote monolithically represents 'historic Reformed theology'.

Also, your reference to 'certain' theories is so vague it is hard to agree or disagree.

 

[TimV]

Ken I suppose you'd have to throw in whether or not there was significant criticism of Beza's theories by his contemporaries. If there wasn't, one could make a pretty strong case that his thoughts were fairly typical.

 

[Christusregnat]

The only way Beza's quote could demonstrate "how far removed certain theories of the "Two Kingdoms" are from historic Reformed theology," is if it could be shown that Beza's quote monolithically represents 'historic Reformed theology'.

Also, your reference to 'certain' theories is so vague it is hard to agree or disagree.

Ken,

Beza was asked to write this book, as he explains, by the following persons: John Calvin, Philip Melanchthon, Henry Bullinger, and Wolfgang Capito. I think this represents a fairly good cross-section of thought.

As Beza also cites, this view of the two kingdoms was Augustine's view, and therefore it did not, and would not find much opposition, except among the Anabaptists of his day, who rejected the Constantinian Establishment (the logical outworking of this Two Cities/Kingdoms view), and other fringe groups.

Any view that posits the "Two Kingdoms" or Cities as the institutions of Church and State is at variance with the Reformers' view, that the "Two Kingdoms" represent mutually hostile kingdoms, whether in church or state. In other words, clearly Beza, Calvin, Capito and Melanchthon would have recognized the various jurisdictions of church and state, but this was not their "Two Kingdom" theology.

Contemporary criticism came from Anabaptists, and from Sebastian Castellito, one who adopted Anabaptist social views, as Beza points out elsewhere in this book.


---------- Post added at 06:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 AM ----------

Ken I suppose you'd have to throw in whether or not there was significant criticism of Beza's theories by his contemporaries. If there wasn't, one could make a pretty strong case that his thoughts were fairly typical.

Beza is fairly representing Augustine's view, as he cites. The vast majority of his contemporaries would have agreed with Augustine, except, as I said, the Anabaptists.

Cheers,

 

[Peairtach]

I think the WSC R2K people are swinging in the opposite direction to the Reformers, partly to avoid B*hns**ianism. There's no need to do this and it unecessarily complicates the debate, along with their revival of the Republication of the Covenant of Works (RoCoW).

The Church of the Millennial Silver Age will be mature enough not to demand that the mature Christian society be brought under the relative slavery and pedagogy of Moses, and will make appropriate modifications and adjustments to Mosaic judicial laws for that blessed society.

In that mature and truly Enlightened (by Christ's Spirit) society, demands to return to the relative immaturity of the Apostolic Administration (Pentecostalism) will also fall away.

May the Lord hasten such days. Of course if we see little of it on Earth, we will see and understand all God's works of Providence in a new way in Heaven.

 

[Christusregnat]

Richard,

Please avoid such comments on theonomy. I don't want this thread to be about theonomy, as I stated above, and would appreciate if you would respect that.

 

[Peairtach]

Well the way I see it geographically and materially the Whole Earth is Christ's de iure and so are the souls of men. This was particularly declared in the end of the Jewish theocracy. Our new Moses-Joshua, David-Solomon is Christ and His conquering-redemptive activities are not to be restricted to Israel-Palestine alone, although certainly including Israel-Palestine.

This time the conquest is by the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. Satan has set up his rebel kingdom within the kingdom now claimed by right and law by Christ. But it isn't a legitimate kingdom.

Christ's kindom does not truly extend by the sword or the bullet, and it is not preserved by the sword or the bullet, except to the extent that providential events such as wars, are used by Him to bring people to repentance.

The kingdom extends by the foolish means of the preaching of the Gospel, plentiful effusions of the Spirit, and God's people living holy lives and applying God's Word wisely and carefully, to all of life, including the state. But we are told not to put too much confidence in princes/politics.

Societies and states will change when people change in large enough numbers through conversion.

And often God's people may see little visible success for their efforts, but they must be patient and wait for the time that God has set for Zion.

 

[Christusregnat]

Thanks Richard!

 

[Mushroom]

I object to the term "salty theonomists"! I know some fine theonomists, but I think you're being unfair in your assertion that their saltiness varies to any great degree from that of the rest of the population.