Talk:Two kingdoms doctrine

message: 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)
thread_title:  Calvin was not 2K 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Francis Turretin 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "References after punctuation per WP:REFPUNC and WP:PAIC" usually refers to a space before a "<ref" or punctuation after "/ref>"Quebec99 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two kingdoms 

message: [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)
thread_title:  Luther on Separation of Church and State 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  On Secular Authority quote