Talk:Two kingdoms doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Lutheranism / Calvinism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Calvinism.

Calvin was not 2K[edit]

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 (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. (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 (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Requested move[edit]

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 kingdomsTwo 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. -- (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)
  • 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[edit]

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 (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)