Calvin was a Two-Kingdomer

[ww]

“…I have undertaken to say with what laws a Christian state ought to be governed, what laws can piously be used before God, and be rightly administered among men.…I would have preferred to pass over this matter in utter silence if I were not aware that here many dangerously go astray. For there are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations. Let other men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is; it will be enough for me to have proved it false and foolish.” Calvin, Institutes, IV.XX.14

“The judicial law, given to them for civil government, imparted certain formulas of equity and justice, by which they might live together blamelessly and peaceably… the form of their judicial laws, although it had no other intent than how best to preserve that very love which is enjoined by God’s eternal law, had something distinct from that precept of love. Therefore, as ceremonial laws could be abrogated while piety remained safe and unharmed, so too, when these judicial laws were taken away, the perpetual duties and precepts of love could still remain.…But if this is true, surely every nation is left free to make such laws as it foresees to be profitable for itself…. they indeed vary in form but have the same purpose.” Calvin, Institutes, IV.XX.15

“[After reviewing laws and penalties of various nations] Yet we see how, with such diversity, all laws tend to the same end. For, together with one voice, they pronounce punishment against those crimes which God’s eternal law has condemned, namely, murder, theft, adultery, and false witness. But they do not agree on the manner of punishment. Nor is this either necessary or expedient…. There are ages that demand increasingly harsh penalties…. There are nations inclined to a particular vice, unless it be most sharply repressed. How malicious and hateful toward public welfare would a man be who is offended by such diversity, which is perfectly adapted to maintain the observance of God’s law?” Calvin, Institutes, V.XX.16

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?

 

[Casey]

I don't have much time, so I'll be brief.

...Christian state...

Sort of ironic that he'd refer to a "Christian state" if he denied such a thing existed.

...it does seem that Calvin holds to a Dual Citizenship rather than a Theonomic point of view.

This is a false dichotomy. It assumes these are the only two views Calvin could hold.

 

[ChristianTrader]

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

CT

 

[ww]

I don't have much time, so I'll be brief.

...Christian state...

Sort of ironic that he'd refer to a "Christian state" if he denied such a thing existed.

...it does seem that Calvin holds to a Dual Citizenship rather than a Theonomic point of view.

This is a false dichotomy. It assumes these are the only two views Calvin could hold.

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-----

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

CT

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.

 

[Casey]

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.

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.

 

[larryjf]

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.

 

[ww]

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.

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 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?

 

[Glenn Ferrell]

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. ...​

 

[ww]

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.

 

[Casey]

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?

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

 

[ww]

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. ...​

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?

 

[ChristianTrader]

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

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

CT

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.

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-----

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.

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 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?

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

CT

 

[larryjf]

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.

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...

...as ceremonial laws could be abrogated while piety remained safe and unharmed, so too, when these judicial laws were taken away, the perpetual duties and precepts of love could still remain.…But if this is true, surely every nation is left free to make such laws as it foresees to be profitable for itself…. they indeed vary in form but have the same purpose.

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.

[After reviewing laws and penalties of various nations] Yet we see how, with such diversity, all laws tend to the same end. For, together with one voice, they pronounce punishment against those crimes which God’s eternal law has condemned, namely, murder, theft, adultery, and false witness. But they do not agree on the manner of punishment. Nor is this either necessary or expedient…. There are ages that demand increasingly harsh penalties…. There are nations inclined to a particular vice, unless it be most sharply repressed. How malicious and hateful toward public welfare would a man be who is offended by such diversity, which is perfectly adapted to maintain the observance of God’s law?

"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-----

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. ...​

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?

 

[Manuel]

what does Tommy Two-Kingdom mean?

 

[ww]

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.

 

[MW]

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.

 

[ww]

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.

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

 

[Prufrock]

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.

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

 

[MW]

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

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

 

[MW]

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

I'd like to think so.

 

[ww]

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

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

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