From reading these passages although Calvin definitely is different than Thomas Aquinas as he identifed Natural Law with the Decalogue, it does seem that Calvin holds to a Dual Citizenship rather than a Theonomic point of view.

For additional support I recommend reading Dr Clark's "Calvin on the Lex Naturalis" found here http://www.wscal.edu/clark/1998rsclexnat.pdf

I assume there are plenty of you who disagree with this assessment if so what do you do with these statements from John Calvin?

__________________
Wayne Whitmer
Member, Rio Rancho OPC
Albuquerque, NM

I don't have much time, so I'll be brief.
Sort of ironic that he'd refer to a "Christian state" if he denied such a thing existed.
This is a false dichotomy. It assumes these are the only two views Calvin could hold.

__________________
Casey, Chicagoland, OPC

I do not see where it is demonstrated that Calvin does not see natural law and the decalogue as being synonymous.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

Ok then what is his view? You immediately declare it a false dichotomy but are unwilling to actually declare what he did believe? Maybe when you have more time you can come back and actually demonstrate that Calvin did not hold either of these views as you seem to imply from your statement.

I feel like I've just been involved in a hit and run.

-----Added 4/18/2009 at 09:41:32 EST-----

Hermonta,

I actually state in the OP that he did hold that Natural Law was synonymous with the Decalogue but that doesn't prove he held to Theonomy. I even included Dr Clark's piece regarding Calvin's view of Natural Law.

Hit and run? I kinda like that.

I'm not making a positive argument that Calvin held a particular view, I'm only saying that I disagree with your conclusion.

Your argument seems to be:
(1) since Calvin was not theonomic due to his admitting that the Mosaic civil law ("so too, when these judicial laws were taken away") would pass away,
(2) therefore, Calvin held the two-kingdom, dual-citizenship view.

But that conclusion does not follow. The only way your argument would be valid, again, is if theonomy and two-kingdoms were the only two positions. I don't think they are.

Okay, I just proved I can't control myself when the temptation to reply is foisted upon me.

I would suggest that if it could be shown that the judicial law was only for the nation of Israel then that would add viability to the non-theonomic system.

However, the Scriptures show us that nations outside of Israel were also accountable to not only the civil part of the moral law, but the religious part as well as the judicial application of that law...

Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. (Lev 18:24-28)

Notice that it speaks of both "statutes" and "judgments"...the judgments relates to the judicial law and was required at the hand of the nations outside of Israel, and Israel is warned not to take the same rebellious path.

When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God. For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do. (Deu 18:9-14)


Israel was to devote these nations to destruction because of their breaking these laws of God.

__________________
Larry Bray
Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/
Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net
-----------------------------------------------------
Christian ritual costs nothing and is worth nothing. True Christian religion costs all that we have and is worth everything.

I get trigger happy myself sometimes. In any event the only way my argument would be valid is if it is proven to be valid. I'm not actually making the argument because he wasn't a Theonomist he embraced Two Kingdom Theology I'm actually making the argument that he wasn't Theonomic and I believe he embraced Two Kingdom Theology. Make sense? The only reason I reference these two school of thoughts is because they both claim Calvin as their own. Hope that helps?

More important than Calvin’s position on the judicial law is his view of the obligation of the civil magistrate to enforce the whole (both tables) of the moral law:

[Institutes IV.20.9] The duty of magistrates, its nature, as described by the word of God, and the things in which it consists, I will here indicate in passing. That it extends to both tables of the law, did Scripture not teach, we might learn from profane writers; for no man has discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the common weal, without beginning with religion and divine worship. Thus all have confessed that no polity can be successfully established unless piety be its first care, and that those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men. ...

__________________
Glenn Ferrell
Pastor, Sovereign Redeemer Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Boise, Idaho

http://sovereignredeemer.org

http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_de...formationidaho


Nec Tamen Consumebatur


The duty of magistrates...extends to both tables of the law, ... those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men. - Calvin, Institutes, IV:20:9

Thank You Larry for the insight as to why you embrace Theonomy. Do you have any thoughts as to what Calvin was communicating in these passages from the Institutes? They seem to imply a non-Theonomic perspective.

That makes sense, brother. Thanks for the clarification. I understand trigger-happiness.

Thanks Glenn! So Calvin believed that both tables of the moral law should be enforced but not necessarily carry the same penalties as were exacted in Israel?

I read it backward. I thought you wrote that Aquinas held that the decalogue and natural law were synonymous and that Calvin held to a different view. Sorry bout that.

CT

-----Added 4/18/2009 at 11:11:41 EST-----

I do not know anyone that holds to two kingdom theology today, that believes that both tables should be enforced.

CT

Just to clarify...i'm not theonomic...i'm leaning that way, but still studying the issue so haven't embraced it completely yet.
As to Calvin...

ceremonial laws were abrogated because they were fulfilled in Christ. They were a shadow of the things that Christ came to fulfill.
In this respect ceremonial laws weren't a direct application of the moral law as judicial laws are. Judicial laws are a direct application of the moral law, as such there would be no reason to abrogate them. After all, law and application of law go hand in hand...to abrogate one is to abrogate the other.

"law" includes both statutes and judgments for breaking such statutes. To suggest that judgments need diversity is to suggest that the statutes themselves need diversity.

-----Added 4/18/2009 at 11:55:20 EST-----

what does Tommy Two-Kingdom mean?

__________________
Manuel Rivas
Merritt Island, Fl

Manuel et al,

My apologies for bringing that label into the discussion however my primary purpose is to focus on what Calvin is implying in these statements. It seems he is implying a less than Theonomic standard at least in the Reconstructionist emphasis.

CT,

You would be correct I don't know of any either who believe that the civil magistrate should enforce both tables of the law and either do I. However that is another topic and I'm not completely convinced that Calvin does either even with Glenn's quote as I compare it with what he has said elsewhere. And finally if he does than this is an area where Calvin and I would not be in agreement. Rare for me to disagree with Mr Calvin but it was bound to happen at some point.

All establishmentarians I have read teach the concept of dual citizenship and the reality of two kingdoms. (Melville's famous speech to King James particularly comes to mind.) Something more than the presence of a few key words is necessary to establish that Calvin held to a Lutheran or Anabaptist rather than a Calvinist view of the State.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Wow! Rev Winzer please refer to the post above on false dichotomies as I believe it may benefit you.

I believe the rules of grammar dictate that this is an argument you cannot possibly lose.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Very funny point!

__________________
Josh Hicks, Chloë's Dad
Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCGA
Facebook - The Calvinist Vent
Board Rules - Signature Rules - Suggestion Box

It is God that multiplies our sorrows.... God, as a righteous Judge, does it, which ought to silence us under all our sorrows; as many as they are, we have deserved them all, and more: nay, God, as a tender Father, does it for our necessary correction, that we may be humbled for sin, and weaned from the world by all our sorrows; and the good we get by them, with the comfort we have under them, will abundantly balance our sorrows, how greatly soever they are multiplied. - Matthew Henry

Is it possible you are framing the issue in different categories than the way it is historically discussed?

I'd like to think so.

Well since I'm a contemporary trying to look back 500 Years it is entirely possible.