BuddyOfDavidClarkson
Puritan Board Freshman
Can anyone suggest good resources (preferably Puritan) on the two kingdoms?
Good resources on the two kingdoms?
- Thread starter BuddyOfDavidClarkson
- Start date
- Status
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
This is post-Puritan, but of that strain: Two Cities, Two Loves, by James Montgomery Boice.
crhoades
Puritan Board Graduate
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!
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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?
Bygracealone
Puritan Board Sophomore
Though pre-Puritan, City of God by Augustine is what I was going to recommend.
Here's an article entitled "Puritan Jurisprudence: A Study in Subtantive Biblical Law":
Puritan Jurisprudence: A Study In Substantive Biblical Law
Puritan Jurisprudence: A Study In Substantive Biblical Law
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
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
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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
Puritan Board Graduate
BuddyOfDavidClarkson
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
I need good books on that.
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!
I am not an expert, but doesn't this sound like 'Thomism'? Isn't this what the RCs believe?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
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.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
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.
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
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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
Puritanboard Assessor
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).
Me Died Blue
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.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
Puritan Board Senior
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
This doesn't load for me.
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
Puritanboard Assessor
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!
I don't dispute that unbelievers have a knowledge of morality, especially pertaining to murder. I simply would add that they suppress that knowledge.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
