Talk:Two kingdoms doctrine

Calvin was not 2K
Will this page be corrected? Luther's 2k as explicated on this page is quite different from the historical Calvinist position and Calvin's conception (as well as Augustine's). VanDrunen's version of 2k is frequently referred to in reformed Calvinist circles as R2K - Radical 2k - because it does not reflect the historical Calvinistic teaching. Furthermore, the characterization of the alternate Calvinist perspective of "neo-Calvinism" and "Transformationalism" is inaccurate and highly dichotomous. I would highly recommend a complete revamp of the Calvinist portion of this page. I will try to return with appropriate citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.60.94 (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Calvin excoriated one of Luther's disciples over this doctrine.

How can one look at Calvin's Geneva and think that he was 2K? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.159.231 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct, see Institutes Book 4, Chapter 20, section 9 to see Calvin's view on the civil magistrate's duty: which encompasses both tables of law and the purity of worship.162.58.82.135 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Logan

Indeed. This doctrine represents a profound and fundamental difference between the Reformed and the Lutherans. It is a form of Law and Gospel that brings out the differences between Lutherans and the Reformed. And the difference between Reformed and Lutherans on the Third Use of the Law and on Sanctification are blurred because this doctrine is not understood properly.

The point that this doctrine places the Church into the earthly kingdom also is a sharp departure from Roman Catholic Scholasticism. It was, in fact, the decisive departure in many ways. Frank Sonnek — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.106.226.84 (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Are not the quotes from On Secular Authority completely uncited, and thus unverifiable? 209.65.50.61 (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Two kingdoms doctrine. There is a rough consensus for a move; this title appears to be the least objectionable to participants. "Two kingdoms" will remain a redirect as there are no ambiguous articles. Cúchullain t/ c 14:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Doctrine of the two kingdoms → Two kingdoms – The title is too long and an unlikely search term. Two kingdoms already redirects here. Two kingdoms theology and Two kingdoms doctrine are second and third choices if people feel it sounds to vague. JFH (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose "two kingdoms" should be a disambiguation page, for two-kingdom federations, and what I personally think of when I see this term, Kingdom (biology), where multiple two-kingdom/two-empire systems of organization of living things are listed. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree now that I know that. Any objection to Two kingdoms theology? --JFH (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - perfectly fine by WP:CRITERIA as it is. Google Books. "Two-kingdoms doctrine" occurs in those sources too but appears a bit dismissive and non-neutral. Two kingdoms theology isn't an improvement, not much used and doctrine/theology are not exactly the same. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought up WP:CRITERIA. This fails conciseness. What does the title convey that Two kingdoms doctrine does not? --JFH (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * support as proposed; what are people looking for at two kingdoms exactly if not this? Red Slash 16:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Red Slash. The IP has hinted at ambiguity, but so far there's no indication that ambiguity actually exists, given the lack of a dab and the proposed title already redirecting here. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose sounds a bit too close to Three Kingdoms, which is about, you know, actual kingdoms. I see no wrong in Two kingdoms doctrine. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * But how is that relevant, unless you expect readers looking for Three Kingdoms to check Two kingdoms? --BDD (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - It looks to me that the closer of this move will not see a consensus here for Two kingdoms, but there is some support for Two kingdoms doctrine. It would help if User:BDD and any others who expressed an opinion on 'Two kingdoms' but didn't comment on 'Two kingdoms doctrine' would give their views on that alternative. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a step in the right direction, I suppose. --BDD (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Francis Turretin
The article states 'Francis Turretin developed the doctrine significantly by linking the temporal kingdom with Christ's status as eternal God and creator of the World, and the temporal kingdom with his status as incarnate son of God and redeemer of humanity.[7]'. The 'temporal kingdom' is twice mentioned here and presumably one of these is a mistake. I assume the incarnate son sentence should read 'spiritual kingdom'. In any event, Turrentin didn't develop this particular doctrine - it is found in the 16th century century presbyterian Thomas Cartwright and in the seventeenth century authors Samuel Rutherford (e.g. A Peaceable and Temperate Plea for Paul's Presbyterie in Scotland (1642) pp.294-308), the writings of George Gillespie (e.g. Aaron's Rod Blossoming (1646)) and the in the London ministers Jus Divinum Regimini Ecclesiastici (1646), so it was a commonplace by the time Turrentin was formulating his Institutio Theologiae Elencticae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.222.161 (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Two kingdoms
I'm new to wiki. I noticed Quebec made an edit to the two kingdoms article 5 days ago. I cant see what it is that exactly was his edit. And would like to understand how to discuss edits with other editors ... Can anyone here help me out? Frank W Sonnek (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. You click on "view history" and then click "prev" in the edit list. As it turns out, User:Quebec99's two edits were minor housekeeping stuff. StAnselm (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "References after punctuation per WP:REFPUNC and WP:PAIC" usually refers to a space before a ""Quebec99 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Luther on Separation of Church and State
[Cit directly from Luther, not someone interpreting Luther without a cit]. Modern Scandinavia and Germany are proof that Lutherans never taught a doctrine of separation of church and state. And two kingdoms is not, even a little, about that. I hope my tone doesn't come off as harsh, but...help me out. I'm new at this. If there is a more polite way to work thru this, I would welcome guidance and moderation. :)]

The term "separation of church and state" is attributed to Thomas Jefferson, ca 1802 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States)

It stands to reason that this relatively modern concept did not come into play in Luther's thought or any official Lutheran doctrine.

However, the very nature of the necessity of Reformation speaks to the very flawed reality of an enmeshed spiritual and secular authority, evidenced in the rampant heresies of the Catholic church of Luther's time, and the untenable framework of the Holy Roman Empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire#Reformation_and_Renaissance

In no way should it be implied that Luther or Lutheran doctrine espouses the modern American concept of "Separation of Church and State," but it also cannot be argued that Luther would have argued for a unilateral political theocracy as we might conceive of it now. Were it possible for civil government to exist "based on relationship to Christ," it is possible that Luther would have advocated for such a government. However, Luther's understanding of the necessity of "the sword" in government, as well as the vast majority of his actions involved in the Reformation, imply that he would not have been foolhardy enough to conceive of a civil government that could function in the realm of doctrinally pure relationship to Christ. It would be a grand day for all if this were possible, but it seems more likely a pipe dream. (speculation, no direct citations to support this.)

Eugene Heideman offers more thorough insight regarding the matter, primarily espousing the notion of the possibility of functional and tenable theocracy. https://repository.westernsem.edu/pkp/index.php/rr/article/view/895 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:1400:2706:FDC9:AD97:707F:BF4C (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

On Secular Authority quote
What's the problem here? A straightforward primary source quote from a reputable university translation that says what the article says it does in a way any intelligent layman would understand is not prohibited. It's a well known quote and in a reasonable amount of secondary sources, but we oughtn't need them. SeanusAurelius (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve Please opine? SeanusAurelius (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * it is WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR. In other words: it is your opinion that this passage refers to the topic, not that of a WP:SECONDARY WP:RS. Veverve (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)