Paleo vs. Neo-Reformed (continued)
March 4th, 2009 by Darryl G. HartThe paleo/neo distinction for Reformed Protestants is not only useful for discerning different attitudes toward evangelicalism, but even for figuring out distinct understandings of Calvinism itself. After all, the Kuyperian or world-and-life-view form of Calvinism has always been known as neo-Calvinism. That reputation implies a distinction with paleo-Calvinism, and furthers the wariness that should accompany the use of the prefix “neo” — as in neo-conservative, neo-evangelical, and neo-orthodox.
Neo-Calvinists are prone to dismiss paleo-Calvinists as warmed over Lutherans because of either the two-kingdom doctrine or the spirituality of the church. This is not the place to elaborate on either of these, except to remark that when paleo-Calvinists distinguish between the sacred and the secular, the spiritual and the natural, the temporal and the eternal, neo-Calvinists go batty and think that paleo-Calvinists are following Luther and restricting Christianity to the realm of religion and ethics. (As if Luther’s view of vocation and the goodness of work in this world doesn’t suggest that neo-Calvinists are confused about Luther and Lutheranism.)
True enough, paleo-Calvinists do distinguish between redemption and creation and think of Christianity the way the Bible does, as a religion of redemption and not a program of cultural and social renewal (which is why so many neo-Calvinists are tempted by theonomy and a view of Israel as a program of cultural and social renewal). But paleo-Calvinists do recognize the goodness of creation. They simply don’t think that creation is the place to look for redemption.
At the same time, paleo-Calvinists understand that redemption goes beyond creation. Creation as good was not the aim of God’s plan. The idea was to go higher to a place of blessedness that was even better than goodness. Sin messed up that plan. But redemption puts glorification back into play by promising that saints will one day inherit what Adam would have had he kept the covenant of works. The Garden of Eden was not the goal, nor was Old Jerusalem, Grand Rapids, or New York City. The new heavens and new earth was.
Paleo-Calvinists object to neo-Calvinists, then, for not understanding that consummation goes beyond creational norms and structures. Neo-Calvinists seem to want to go back to the Garden. Paleo-Calvinists believe that the Garden was not and is not all there is to man’s chief end. Pale0-Calvinists also sense that ne0-Calvinists are not really comfortable with the goodness of creation as creation. That’s why they keep talking about the need to redeem the culture, or redemption as cultural or social renewal. The implicit point seems to be that if something can’t be saved, then it’s no good. The neo-Calvinist seems to have no place for an in-between state — one between holy and profane such as common or good.
Neo-Calvinists should not despair. Paleo-Calvinists have just what they need, that is a dose of paleo-Calvinism from the most paleo of Calvinists, John Calvin, who made a distinction that neo-Calvinists are loathe to make:
. . . whoever knows how to distinguish between body and soul, between this present fleeting life and that future eternal life, will without difficulty know that Christ’s spiritual Kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct. Since, then, it is a Jewish vanity to seek and enclose Christ’s Kingdom within the elements of this world, let us rather ponder that what Scripture clearly teaches is a spiritual fruit, which we gather from Christ’s grace; and let us remember to keep within its own limits all that freedom which is promised and offered to us in him. For why is it that the same apostle who bids us stand and no submit to the ‘yoke of bondage’ (Gal. 5:1) elsewhere forbids slaves to be anxious about their state (1 Cor. 7:21), unless it be that spiritual freedom can perfectly well exist along with civil bondage? . . . . By these statements he means that it makes no difference what your condition among men may be or under what nation’s laws you live, since the Kingdom of Christ does not at all consist of these things.
This quotation points precisely at an in-between realm that is neither wicked nor holy — it is temporal, earthly, and provisional. It recognizes that some things in life are good even if they are not holy, and that their proper place is simply to be good and not to be saved (or made holy). It is the difference between a good meal and a holy meal. And the ability to see the difference between an exceptional home-cooked meal and the Lord’s Supper is one that allows paleo-Calvinists to see the difference between the creational realm of culture and society, and the redeemed world of the church. It is, in fact, the only way to make sense of statements like this one from the Belgic Confession:
Now those who are regenerated have in them a twofold life (2 John 3:6): the one corporal and temporal, which they have from the first birth and is common to all men; the other spiritual and heavenly, which is given them in their second birth (John 3:5), which is effected by the word of the gospel (John 5:23, 25) in the communion of the body of Christ: and this life is not common, but is peculiar to God’s elect (1 John 5:12; John 10:28). In like manner God has given us, for the support of the bodily and earthly life, earthly and common bread which is subservient thereto and is common to all men, even as life itself. But for the support of the spiritual and heavenly life which believers have, he has sent a living bread which descended from heaven, namely, Jesus Christ (John 6:32-33, 51), who nourishes and strengthens the spiritual life of believers when they eat Him, that is to say, when they apply and receive him by faith and in the Spirit (John 6:63). (BC, Art. 35)
Your question is interesting; you’ve read me as saying, “if we don’t obey Jesus, He isn’t Lord. Therefore, we have to obey Him in order to make Him Lord.” And so you wish to affirm that Jesus is Lord, reigning over all, even if every man rejects Him. And that’s a valid point.
But now the good and necessary consequence is that *if* we do acknowledge the Kingship of Jesus, then we must necessarily accept His Word as normative for us.
So it’s not “Jesus isn’t Lord if we don’t obey Him”, but rather, “because Jesus already is Lord, we must obey Him.”
And the question then is whether (a) that extends to Christians operating in the common sphere, and (b) whether that extends to non-Christians operating in the common sphere.
I would like to get some agreement that (a) is a definite “yes.” And then (b) is the subject of your next reply:
This really gets to the nub of it. In my view, those outside of the covenant community are not, by simple virtue of that fact, entirely outside of the norms of God.
On a philosophical level, it is important on my view that God’s preceptive will defines what is right and what is wrong. So on that account, the norms are universal. I would say that this is my overlap with van Til.
On a Biblical level, I don’t find that those outside the covenant community are freed from Scriptural norms. Rather, the pagan is judged according to the Law written on his heart. Ninevah is judged “because they have sinned” — transgressed God’s Law. Ditto for Sodom.
So while I see an intensivizing of the Law in Israel, so that the Jews are “under the Law”, I don’t find the corollary, that those outside the covenant community are therefore free from God’s Law, to be true.
So your question is, Why? If the Law was given in order to set apart Israel from the rest of humanity, then how would it make sense that the Law also applies to the nations?
And I would reply, that the Law was really given in the Garden. Isn’t that what the Confession teaches?
So it’s not that all men are part of the covenant community, but rather that all men are bound to the obligations of the Law because they are in Adam. What set Israel apart was not that they were held to a different standard, but that they had an exacting knowledge and excruciating enforcement of that standard (cf. Rom. 2-3).
Now, you might reasonably counter that theonomy wants to hold the whole world to the exacting standard and enforcement given to Israel. And I think that’s a fair objection (see here). It may be that our third way makes a distinction between ethical norms and their enforcement.
But from where I sit, the norms are the same everywhere. They just aren’t known in the same way everywhere.
JRC
But the difficulty that I have is that REPT very confidently precludes other ways of thinking about civic polity. I would hope to see a broadening of the position that could clearly mark Scriptural non-negotiables from more speculative points, so that we could come to agreement on “thus saith the Lord.”
I am not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that 2K precludes theonomic ways of thinking about civic polity, OK, and? (I’d ask for the next objection, but after five heads of doctrine I “couldn’t eat another bite,” said Mr. Creosote.)
But 2K is the precise opposite of precluding other ways of thinking about civic polity. There are lotsa ways to conceive of civic shaping. This is where you raise your hand because you seem to think such a statement is to turn tail on what is right, true and good. But this seems to me to be as odd as those who have something against the God-made conscience guiding mortal men (converted or not) day in and day out. What exactly owes to this fear of creational norms could be speculated on at length. In the end, though, I must admit it completely mystifies me.
Jeff, you continue to think as if God’s law and norms only come from the Bible. It is the view of 2k, with the leaven of some sort of natural law theory, that men are in submission to Christ who obey or submit to the created order. And it is the view of 2k that men do this all the time, yes imperfectly, but they still do it when the penalize a man for selling his daughter into prostitution or when the U.S. retaliates against pirates. What you don’t seem to see is that you are being biblicist by implying that the courts need a biblical proof text to lock the father up or for pulling the trigger to attack the pirates. Man, if that were the case, I could understand how the world would be a scary place — so few people reaching for their KJV to determine how to live today. But if the norms are there, whether acknowledged or not, then why not chillax and let Christ be Lord, rather than coming up with your own idea of how Christ should be Lord?
Well, chillax is a class 3 narcotic, so my wife can’t prescribe it for me.
Do you have a street source over there in Delaware? (In MD, the drug of choice is “hopium”)
Two thoughts:
(1) I think you’ve confused me with Bahnsen. For B, the biblical proof text is needed to justify X. For me, X need only be consistent with Scripture to be permissible. AND, I reject the use of OT Law as the specific basis for law today, so proof-texts would be hard to come by anyways.
(2) I’m not particularly disturbed by charges of “biblicism.” Granted that some methods of exegesis are faulty, such as exegeting without an eye towards the collected wisdom of the Church (such as the wisdom found in the Confession) — still and all, I’m a down-to-the-metal kind of guy who wants every doctrine to be tested by the Scriptures per WCoF ch. 1.
So label me a biblicist and I’ll wear it cheerfully.
Putting aside the bravado and such, I closely identify myself with Keith Mathison’s position in the Shape of Sola Scriptura.
So: do I continue to think that God’s Law and norms only come from the Bible? No, I recognize that (a) the Scripture is not exhaustive, and (b) our consciences play a role in moral reasoning. BUT, I do think that to the full extent that the Bible speaks to our lives, it is normative. So in particular, I don’t accept the hard division between cult and culture that you do, in that I believe the Decalogue is binding on everyone.
JRC
I think you’ve confused me with Bahnsen. For B, the biblical proof text is needed to justify X. For me, X need only be consistent with Scripture to be permissible.
Jeff, I’m curious as to the principled difference between proof-texting to justify locking up certain fathers and needing to show consistency. It seems to me that one is merely hard theonomy and the other is soft.
Also, though, how do you harmonize being a citizen of a liberal democracy when Scripture arguably teaches monarchy? I’m being quite serious. I don’t see one word in Scripture that seems at all consistent with the ruled being invited–nay encouraged–to criticize the rulers, or voting, the legitimacy of campaigning, the separation of powers, checks and balances, or individual and human rights. I certainly see nothing that encourages the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
Don’t get me wrong. I love being an American. But it’s not because it’s “consistent with Scripture.” I love it because it’s the citizenry God gave me and it’s really the only one I know. It’s a lot like how I see my parents, siblings, kids and wife. I can say my dad is the best dad in the world, which is the way we speak of America. But that’s an utterance of love and loyalty; if I said he was the best dad in the world because his parenting is the most consistent with Scripture even he’d look at me funny, as if I were making some objective statement about things about which I know nothing.
I’m not sure where the “locking up fathers” thing came from. Did my evil twin advocate that somewhere?
Anyways: do you think your being a citizen of a liberal democracy is inconsistent with Scripture? That you are actively disobeying God by being a citizen of the U.S.A.?
If not, then your question is hard to parse.
JRC
“I knew Calvin, and you my friend are no ‘Calvinist’”
To whom are you referring?
Jeff, the fathers reference has to do with DGH’s suggestion that everyone knows that fathers who sell their daughters into prostitution should be locked up. So the questions are:
1) If everyone knows that, why do we need biblical proof-texting (hard theonomy) or a good and necessary consequence from Scripture (soft theonmoy, AKA transformationalism) to justify it?
2) What is the principled difference between Bahnsen and you, since you suggest to DGH that he is confusing the two of you? (My answer, of course, is that there is no principled difference between hard and soft theonomy.)
Anyways: do you think your being a citizen of a liberal democracy is inconsistent with Scripture? That you are actively disobeying God by being a citizen of the U.S.A.?
I’d think my comment would have answered that. I don’t think it’s even a question of scriptural consistency (because I’m no kind of theonomist). How can I be disobedient when I live thankfully and peacefully where God has put me? But my question to you is this: if everything must justified by its “being consistent with Scripture”–if locking up bad dads has to be then being a citizen also has to be–where do you find American citizenry in Scripture? (I don’t think any sort of civic polity is found in Scripture. But if we begin by assuming there is, then the case could be made that monarchy is taught by good and necessary consequence and not democracy. Maybe that’s to add an unnecessary layer to my question, so ignore it if you want.)
But I still want to know how you justify being an American by scriptural inference when Scripture no where says, for example, anything about criticizing your leaders but in fact teaches more on civil obedience than a polity that nurtures, encourages and even rewards civil disobedience.
Jeff, if I follow these lines correctly, I think me.
Jason, if I’m right, fubar. I can spell “potato” correctly.
There’s a confusion here about what “being consistent with” means. Let’s take for a moment the Gordon Clark thesis that Scripture is mostly propositional (I don’t buy this for an instant, but it’s a helpful model for understanding what follows). Let’s say for simplicity that Scripture teaches X, Y, and Z.
Then, any propositions that do not contradict X, Y, or Z are “consistent with Scripture.”
So if Scripture says nothing about being an American, and says nothing that is contradicted by being an American, then being an American is “consistent with Scripture.”
What you were on about was something stronger: everything must be justified by positive propositions from Scripture. But if that were the case, we couldn’t use telephones or do math. I think we agree that that’s silly; it is the RPW applied meticulously to all of life.
So being “consistent with Scripture” is not a justifying move for me, but a filter — anything inconsistent with Scripture is rejected.
JRC
Well, if you’ve read him correctly then I want to be clear:
At no point have I called your general “Calvinist” credentials into question. From here, you seem at least as Calvinist as many at Calvin college. I have disputed the “paleoCalvinist” label because it seems to mislead wrt Calvin’s views of the state.
But I consider myself a Calvinist and disagree with Calvin’s views of the state, in part. In fact, I think Calvin’s thoughts on the magistrate contain a hiccup that requires disagreement somewhere.
You two are certainly Calvinist as far as I can see.
JRC
Gentlemen:
My shot clock has expired, and I must return to civilian life.
Thank you for your patient endurance of my questions and challenges. In the immortal words of Bob Lynn, I’ve been the “little dog gnawing on your ankles – rrr, rrr, rrr.”
I’m taking away two things:
(1) A greater appreciation for the underlying motivations of REPT — the desire to uphold the Gospel without the need for physical props in this world; the desire for the Church to be the Church; a genuine concern about the implications of transformationalism and its aggressive cousin theonomy.
(2) A better (but still incomplete) understanding of the arguments underpinning REPT.
I’ve hoped to communicate two things:
(1) The question, “What does the Christian magistrate do with himself?” is the money question.
(2) There need not necessarily be two poles of answers – theonomy or else REPT.
This dialog has been challenging, but I’m walking away with a greater sense of rapport with you than I began with.
Grace and peace to you, and God’s blessings on your ministry.
Jeff Cagle
Jeff,
I suppose I am still unsatisfied with the principled difference between “filtering for consistency” (you) and “RPWing all of life” (Bahnsen). I rather conceive our charge as believers to be (imperfect) covenant-keepers with lives structured by the explicit and clear stipulations of the moral law.
Maybe I’m just this side of cynical after a worship committee meeting today with some from the campus, but I’m not sure Calvin College should be the litmus for Calvinism; but I get your point and appreciate it.
It has been fun. I think you’ve been a good sport in all this. 2K is at odds with most default settings, if you ask me, and can be an acquired taste for most.
Be good and stay well.
Jeff, Thanks for the interaction as well. I’m not sure how much progress we’ve made but I do appreciate the chance to understand how others hear the 2k doctrine. I guess the thing that strikes me is how much the 2k view makes distinctions that your view does not, between jurisdictions, between the Bible and general revelation, between the church and the world.
One of the ways this came up in your last comment is your assertion that you think the Decalogue applies to everyone and 2k does not. Well, actually, 2k believes the decalogue does apply to everyone — it condemns the unrigheous (2nd use), and it provides a guide for the saved (3rd use). I’m willing to allow the magistrate to use the decalogue, though I’m not sure I’d want to live in that polity. But I would never think that the magistrate was using the law for gracious ends. It would be a standard for judgment and justice. It would not be a means of grace and forgiveness.
I think that is the biggest mistake of your conflation — to think that the magistrate is doing something Christian by meeting out justice. The covenant of grace has never been about law and justice. If it were, it would be the covenant of works.
DGH, I thought you would appreciate this. My daughter’s has homework for preschool. We pretty much let her read the directions and figure stuff out on her own. Her recent homework was as follows (directions in bold, her answers in italics)
Trace the word CAN below. Then write the word once in each space below
CAN
once
once
once
once
once
The literalist apple falls close to the tree, no?
JRC
Jeff,
That is funny. Somewhere Art Linkletter is smiling to himself like a Cheshire cat.
But from what I recall in my Early Childhood Development courses, preschoolers have an excuse: they are in the throes of a brutal concreteness. It’s part of what makes mine such (relatively) good catechumen. But one wonders what explanation big people have. Smile, it’s a joke.
Jeff, I think you’re daughter is brilliant. It’s her father I’m worried about.
Dude, you have got to be kidding! If I were as touchy as you, I’d be weeping in the corner: I’m a teacher committed to the project of a worldview-oriented school, and you consistently and high-handedly belittle and ridicule such a project and thus the parents and teachers who have made economic sacrifices to pursue such a calling, in good conscience before God as serving him. You express utter contempt for a variety of Christian theologians, philosophers, and ordinary believers trying to understand what the Word calls them to in the world but coming to conclusions different from 2K, and you get all indignant at someone stepping on the toes of your own personal area of study? “Boo hoo, he didn’t take my book seriously!!”
Josh, bull bleep. Theonomists don’t cry.