Stated simply: the two kingdoms doctrine is Calvin\u2019s distinguishing between Christ\u2019s lordship over his eternal kingdom and the temporal affairs of this life. It is important to note that Calvin\u2019s two kingdoms doctrine is first and foremost eschatological rather than spatial in nature. All the terms Calvin uses to describe the two kingdoms \u2014 spiritual\/temporal, heavenly\/earthly, soul\/body, inward\/outward, and ecclesiastical\/political \u2014 are eschatological in his thought.<\/p>\n
The eternal kingdom, for Calvin, is an eschatological reality concerning the restoration of the entire creation beginning with the regeneration of human beings through Christ\u2019s Word and Spirit. Where this restoration begins is in the church, and in this present age, Christ\u2019s kingdom is realised only through the spiritual government that the Lord exercises in the church through his ministers. Calvin thus distinguishes the church from the temporal and political affairs of life \u2014 the temporal kingdom \u2014 albeit not in a hermetically sealed fashion, but in a manner that accords to each sphere its own form of jurisdiction or government.<\/p>\n
It is this fundamental differentiation between the two kingdoms of Christ that leads to Calvin\u2019s programmatic statement in the Institutes of the Christian Religion:<\/em> \u201c[T]here is a twofold government in man: one aspect is spiritual, whereby the conscience is instructed in piety and in reverencing God; the second is political, whereby man is educated for the duties of humanity and citizenship that must be maintained among men\u201d .<\/p>\n The chief utility of Calvin\u2019s twofold government concept arising from his two kingdoms doctrine is that the boundaries of each governmental realm, and consequently their function and role, become clearly defined. One is concerned with the restoration of true spiritual righteousness, virtue and eternal life in humanity, while the other with establishing civil righteousness and \u2014 within the context of the Genevan commonwealth \u2014 the outward worship and defence of true religion in accordance with love and prudence.<\/p>\n With these clearly demarcated boundaries comes the appropriate circumscription of authority. While temporal or magisterial authority through the office of the civil government is not meant and is not able to bring about a true inward righteousness and piety associated with salvation from sin, civil government is necessary to preserve outward piety and order while awaiting the consummation. Similarly, because spiritual or ministerial authority mediates the spiritual kingdom to believers in this time and age, the office of the pastor is to be focused on faithfully ministering Christ\u2019s Word and the sacraments, and in enforcing church discipline, while leaving the other area of how the church is to conduct herself as an institution in the political kingdom under the jurisdiction of the civil authorities. In short, as Calvin himself states: \u201cThe church does not assume what is proper to the magistrate; nor can the magistrate execute what is carried out by the church\u201d.<\/p>\n Having outlined the broad framework of Calvin\u2019s overall political theology, allow me to conclude by sharing two insights pertinent to our public engagement today.<\/p>\n First, Calvin\u2019s two kingdoms political theology provides a realistic picture of both church and state, and it grounds our political theology in a form of Christian realism deeply rooted in an orthodox and scriptural foundation. Civil government is not the kingdom of Christ, and it should not be rendered so. The civil law from which magistrates operate is not only unable to establish spiritual righteousness but often has to tolerate sin and sometimes even regulate sinful practices so as to mitigate their most destructive consequences. Civil government is not delegitimised when it fails to comply with the moral standards of God\u2019s law, nor should it be required to do so. Likewise, even as spiritual government leads to true inward righteousness, the church must refrain from dictating the way in which the laws of the land are to reflect that righteousness; spiritual or ecclesiastical government must not overextend its authority into that of the temporal or political government.<\/p>\n Second, Calvin\u2019s preference in turning to natural law rather than the Law of Moses in framing moral discourse \u2014 even within a Christian commonwealth \u2014 provides a valuable insight as to how we can conduct moral discourse within pluralistic societies today. By his non-insistence on conformity to the Old Testament\u2019s civil law, advocating instead the rigorous use of reason, experience, pagan political philosophy and the laws of nations in tandem with Scripture as his mode of moral and political reasoning, Calvin not only rules out theonomy as a vision for societies, but upholds natural law \u2014 ultimately identified as the law of love and the rule of equity \u2014 as a basis by which Christians can participate in public engagement in our religiously diverse or otherwise secular societies. Using natural law need not mean that Christians have surrendered biblical norms and values, for the final authority concerning the content of natural law is still Scripture. But because natural law can be known through reason, the sciences, experience and conscience, it offers Christians a means of participating meaningfully in moral and political discourse without either preaching at nonbelievers or putting Christian confession as a prerequisite for discussion. It provides us with a common ground, a \u2018public reason\u2019 to further dialogue.<\/p>\n TRUMPET\u00a0 |\u00a0 Cover Story\u00a0 |\u00a0 Aug 2019<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.ttc.edu.sg\/english\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/02\/EF-1-300x121.png\")
<\/p>\n