If Not Two Kingdoms, Two Decalogues
December 21st, 2009 by Darryl G. Hart
In other words, you gotta serve some dualism.
I’ve had another worldview moment. I am struck that critics of the two-kingdom position, especially the ones who insist upon Christian schools, believe that a major issue in the disagreement is whether or not the Bible is the norm for public life (as well as other sectors outside the church). Fine, I get that. General revelation or natural law may not be sufficient to maintain the order that we desire in society. I suspect, though, that the objection is also that general revelation and natural law won’t yield a Christian society. But that’s another issue.
So let’s concede that the Bible should be the norm for political life. That would appear to solve the problem of abortion, same-sex marriage, and divorce. (Sorry, it doesn’t resolve the debate about Christian schools.) The sixth and seventh commandments would appear to be pretty handy for cleaning up American morality.
But what doesn’t seem to dawn on these Bible-as-norm-for-public-life folks is that we have not simply two but ten commandments. And the first four are particularly hard not on crime but on false worship, idolatry, blasphemy, and profaning the Lord’s Day. So if the Bible is to be the norm for public life, then all of a sudden not simply murder, divorce, adultery, fornication, lying, stealing are punishable offenses but so are Roman Catholicism and Mormonism, for instance, at least from the view of a Reformed world view.
I wonder if the implication of the whole integral law occurred to Dr. Kloosterman when he wrote the following in response to my piece in Christian Renewal. This summer he wrote:
The heart of my disagreement with religious secularism appears most clearly, I think, with this claim of Dr. Hart: “To suggest that Christian norms must be dominant in public life raises the threat of the very sort of religious warfare in which Protestants and Roman Catholics engaged in hopes of maintaining a uniform society.” A number of possible responses come to mind, but two will suffice.
First, if the worldly kingdom (public life) is to be governed by that natural law revealed
in creation, and if the Decalogue is nothing less than the republication of that natural law, then why would Christians not want the civil magistrate to proscribe what the Decalogue proscribes?
To play Rush Limbaugh for a moment: “stop the tape.” This is the heart of the disagreement over Christian schools – whether or not the magistrate enforces the Decalogue. So Christian schooling is really bound up with Christianizing America (and he quotes Machen for support – go figure). In other words, the whole debate over Christian schooling boils down to where one fights in the culture wars – is the Bible the norm for civil society, or is it not? Christian schooling is simply a way of fighting the culture war. We are very glad for the clarification.
“Mr. Snerdly, resume cut one.”
Kloosterman continuuueees.
Dr. Hart’s caution against having “Christian norms be dominant in public life” sounds very much like the warnings against “Christians legislating morality” and against “Christians forcing their religious convictions on others” that have become such common media mottoes in our highly secularized generation. What, in fact, is a “Christian norm”? Are the prohibitions “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and “Thou shalt not steal” peculiarly Christian norms?
Why is it illicit for Christians to appeal to the civil magistrate in the context of public policy relating to abortion, for example, using as only one among several arguments that the magistrate is called by God to honor the Sixth Commandment? If the magistrate’s authority comes from God, then why is it improper for Christians, as but one component of their public political testimony, to point the magistrate to God’s will revealed in Scripture (Ps. 2, Ps. 110, Rom. 13) for exercising that authority?
And if the civil magistrate’s authority comes from God, why go first to the seventh and eighth commandments. If the first and greatest commandment is loving God, why resort first to laws about love of neighbor? The answer appears to be straightforward. False worship and blasphemy do not trouble Dr. K. as much as sex and stealing. And always keep in mind that if you want to be tough on crime, send your children to a Christian school.
So again, to reiterate: if the law is good for the magistrate and it gives him (or her?) guidance about the culture wars, why does it not also give instruction about which religious groups to support and which to forbid? The good attorney from Indiana somehow thinks that this implication is silly because it reflects a complete misunderstanding of the Christian school lobby’s position. But which is more silly, to think that Christ governs the existing age through two kingdoms, one subject to Scripture the other to general revelation, or to think that we can have the Decalogue to prohibit the sins we most oppose but not to the point of making us look intolerant of other religions?
Last time I checked, both Israel and the church were to purge blasphemy and idolatry from their ranks – why – well, that first table of the Decalogue is pretty explicit. But somehow the Christian school advocates think that the state, which will be governed by the same Bible that governs the church, will be tough on sexual sins and murder but not on blasphemy and idolatry.
That leaves us with an interesting disagreement. The folks who condemn two-kingdoms for its dualism (among other things) have a dualistic view of the Decalogue. How integrated is that?
Tags: Christian education, dualism, Kloosterman, the Law, two-kingdoms
Ok, last comment on this post.
dgh: “Embarrassment will not prevent you from trying to assert your will. Way to go.”
*turns the other cheek*
dgh: “If the magistrate is supposed to enforce the good, according to Paul, and the good includes special revelation, then what about idolatry and blasphemy?”
This is not an accurate description of what I was saying. I’m saying that the good the magistrate is to “enforce” (not necessarily the best word) is known from Scripture (in addition to and cooperation with general revelation, of course.) “Good” is to be measured against God’s holy character as reflected in the law of God which is revealed in general revelation AND SCRIPTURE! It is not the case, then, that special revelation per se is to be “enforced,” but rather, that which is to be “enforced” is revealed in and known from special revelation (the Bible for us). But it does not follow from this that God has given the state unlimited authority.
dgh: “Somehow you keep stubbing your stubborn toe against the point of this piece. You don’t want to be guilty of a Christian state that prohibits false religion and yet you want a Christian state-lite, one that will impose Christian norms — minus the Servertus like moments.”
Not quite. What kind of norms do you want the state to impose? Unjust ones? Certainly not, you’d say. But how do you know what an unjust norm is? From general revelation only? A good norm, a just norm, a true norm, a righteous norm – these cannot be such unless they measure up to the standard of the holy character of the Triune God, hence “Christian” norms. How does God reveal Himself? Reformed Theology 101: general AND SPECIAL revelation.
dgh: “In other words, in case you missed the beam that just hit you across the face…”
*other cheek not expecting that*
dgh: “…the redress you seek for abortion is no different from the redress that follows from special revelation’s prohibitions on idolatry and blasphemy.”
Indeed, but it does not necessarily mean that God has authorized the state to carry out that redress, just as God has not authorized parents, or the Church, or adjunct profs at WTSC to carry out that redress. “The soul that sins shall die.” But by whom and when is this to be carried out? – this is another issue.
dgh: “You can’t have the sixth commandment without 1, 2, 3, and 4.”
Amen. You break one you break them all, indeed. Each commandment presupposes the others. That’s what I was saying before. But in what way are these to be “enforced” by the state, as opposed to mom and dad, as opposed to the teacher, as opposed to my elders, etc.? It all depends on the nature and scope of the authority God has given to the different offices of authority. The redress may not be the same for each sin, and the kind of redress that one office of authority is permitted to mete out may not be the same as that of another.
dgh: “As far as the difference between theism and Christianity, are you so deeply rooted in the Dutch Reformed ghetto not to realize that lots of people believe in God but not in Christianity?”
*running out of cheeks to turn*
dgh: “Believing in God is a great incentive for trying to be a law-abiding citizen ….. Regarding yourself as a creature is pretty important in my book for living with some restraint.”
Ok, but this is the reality of situation, not the ideal goal. Enter the Great Commission.
dgh: “One more question, if the Bible is the basis for culture, what exactly is Christian cuisine?
Applying the structure/direction distinction, the cuisine per se is structure and thus not “Christian.” But since all things were created through the Word (Jesus Christ) and since in him all things consist, I suppose that in this sense cuisine can be considered “Christian” because it, along with the whole world, belongs to the Triune God, of which world Christ is King. The “Chrisian” identity or description would pertain to the direction part of the distinction — whether the actions of preparing, serving, and eating the food are done to the glory of God in accordance with His law as it applies to one’s motive and goal. The “Christian” part would also pertain to whether one’s preparing and serving the cuisine is done in obedience to the laws of nature which pertain to cuisine (which laws are upheld by God and reveal something about His character as per Rom. 1:20).
dgh: “But didn’t the abolishment of OT ceremonies and laws do away with kosher and allow Christians to say Opa! and have flaming cheese?”
LOL! And doubly funny since Opa is also the Dutch word for Grandpa, which, if my Grandpa burnt the gouda I’d be yelling ‘Opa’ at him too!
*forgives wooden beam incident*
dgh: “This, as I see it, is THE difference between the 2k people and their critics — it is the capacity to live with non-believers in a plural society and to recognize their ‘goodness.’ Critics of 2k think we have sold the farm for thinking unbelievers are good. But as Calvin shows, there are ways of holding on to the anti-thesis between the church and the world, or the difference between jurisdictions of church and state, without saying that all non-Christians are untrustworthy.”
You have not sold the farm for proposing this. I agree with what you’re saying here. (Did you read the quote I supplied from Van Til’s Apologetic in my previous comment?) Flaming cheese might cover a multitude of sins but you are in danger of selling the farm in the way you go about arguing for your central thesis. You appear to be limiting the authoritative voice of God in the Scriptures to only 1k. But such is not possible for the Christian who is a citizen of 2k’s. The unbeliever might be quite “good” and gifted but we should not be content to leave him in his unbelief, as I’m sure you’re not, and we must not measure his successes (or lack thereof) against a standard other than God’s holy character, which He has not been content to reveal only through general revelation. Living a peaceful co-existence alongside unbelievers should never mean compromising the claims of Christ upon them (and us).
You forgot “Jesus is my favorite philosopher.” That went well. But I’m still trying to see Dubya having read enough Bavinck to have come up with that (as in Aristotle being the forerunner to Christ). Guess it naturally flows more from his Methodism.
DGH: “The woes that we face may likely be political more than moral.”
I’d like to tack on an observation or two. Much of the debate surrounding the 2K idea is muddled by a confusion between political philosophy and moral philosophy. I’m afraid it’s a sign of the times. The prevailing political philosophy–on the left and the right–is that the ideal social arrangement involves universal submission to a single comprehensive morality. This leads to equating the rejection of a political philosophy with rejection of the stated underlying moral philosophy. Thus, when a 2K advocate rejects the imposition of Christian morality on non-believers, the typical 2K critic accuses him of rejecting Christian morality.
This is the same mistake that liberals make when they equate rejection of affirmative action with rejection of racial equality. Compare “If you oppose affirmative action, you are a racist” with “If you oppose laws banning gay marriage (gambling, pornography, etc.), you are an antinomian (or you are using the 2K idea to justify your own sinful conduct).”
In the end, 2K proponents and 2K opponents spend a lot of time talking past one another because the 2K opponents have internalized the prevailing political theory that sees the state as existing to impose a comprehensive moral philosophy on its citizens.
Hey Jeff,
I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer on what I was attempting to say about keeping Christ as the locus. If I understand it correctly, the Lutheran distinction between the two kingdoms is basically a corollary of the proper distinction between law and gospel and foundational for our ethics. IMO, having a firm grasp on the meta-narrative of the bible, the person and work of Christ, and remembering that all of scripture is about Christ is the primary foundation in understanding the two kingdoms. At this point, I think it’s best I zip it. I do not know how the Reformed teach this doctrine. May God bless you.
Bingo!
Darryl,
You have made some good points! Thanks for taking the time to interact on this. I do think it is a hard issue, partly because the Jews in Israel in Jesus’ day and the Christians in Rome in Paul’s day, did not have the privilege of living in a democracy. That changes everything. If we deny that it does, stop voting! I agree that there is a priority of the word of God for the covenant community. You and I would be on board on probably every application when we sat down and discussed them all. I am simply trying to sift through the 2K teaching on ethical standards for governments. That is the issue. We do not believe, as protestants, in a Roman Catholic understanding of NL (i.e. the “oughtness” of laws). We believe that man’s reason is tainted with sin and that it needs to be informed by the word of God. Where was the very first government? It was Eden. Who was the King, President, Governor, Mayor, etc.? Adam! How was he to govern? According to God’s word. This is pre-Moasaic, and yet, because special and general revelation were always meant to go together, Adam was always meant to act in accord with God’s special, revealed will. This is the point I am trying to make. I am arguing for the “best” possible government, not for the legitimacy of governments ruled by common grace and the moral law written on the hearts of men descending from Adam. I should not have raised the sticky issue of Hitler, although I do think it was right for other nations to remove him from power, since he abdegated his right to rule.
Jonah,
You’re still in denial about inhaling dualism. You think the state needs special revelation for justice and righteousness. Why on earth — get it? — you’d expect eschatological standards of justice and righteousness is the big question here. Your estimate of life in this world is just too high. You expect the new Jerusalem. I think the old one and the current one are the ones we live with. If the state can establish a modicum of order, then fine. You really do sound like you expect a more perfect society than we even experience in our communions. Listen to Calvin — don’t be too deeply attached to earthly and perishable things.
Okay, but again, so I’ll grant for the sake of argument that God ordained authorities must rule on the basis of special revelation. So Christian parents rule so, as does the church. But do families and churches only enforce in their ordained capacity only the second table of the law? Doesn’t a parent have as much an obligation to enforce the sixth commandment — “do not get an abortion” — as the fourth — “get your behind out of bed and get ready for church”. Same goes for church authority. It is spiritual, not civil. But the church admininsters and disciplines on the basis of both tables of the law.
But in your “integrated” scheme, the magistrate is off the hook for enforcing commandments 1 through 4. Huh? (Watch out for that beam!)
One difference between us is that you think the state is obligated to rule on the basis of Scripture. And you think I am not Reformed for denying this.
Well consider these passages from the Westminster Confession:
God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers. 23.1
Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto. 25.3
It doesn’t take a theological scientist to see that the church and the state have different tasks and different rules. The WCF doesn’t say the state has the word for the basis of its rule. But the church is to administer the word.
On your view the standards for church and state entirely overlap because they both have the same standard. This is theonomy in some odd form. From which a question follows, will your system allow for Christian liberty?
You simply struggle with the doubleness that is writ large in the Reformed creeds and catechisms that follows the doubleness that afflicts the human condition — of struggling between body and soul. You insist they cohere. The Bible doesn’t. Ecclesiastes especially doesn’t. But Paul doesn’t when he talks about the unseen things having the power of God unto salvation, compared to the wisdom of the Greeks and the power of Israel. The Bible constantly teaches about looking beyond the seen to the eternal, and that is why Calvin taught his disciples to pray not to be too deeply attached to earthly and perishable things. They are fading, they are temporal. You want to invest them with the permanent and the eternal. That is why you struggle with Calvin when he writes:
“. . . there is a twofold government in man: one aspect is spiritual, whereby, the consience 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. These are usually called the ’spiritual’ and the ‘temporal’ jurisdiction (not proper terms) by which is meant that the former sort of government pertains to the life of the soul, while the latter has to do with the concerns of the present life — not only with food and clothing but with laying down laws whereby a man may live his life among other men holily, honorably, and temperately. For the former resides in the inner mind, while the latter regulates only outward behavior. The one we may call the spiriutal kingdom, the other, the political kingdom. Now these two, as we have divided them, must always be examined separately; and while one is being considered, we must call away and turn aside the mind from thinking about the other. There are in man, so to speak, two worlds, over which different kings and different laws have authority.”
RL,
Exactly. This confusion of the moral and political is the default setting for the greater balance of western religion, which is why 2K is rejected even within conservative Protestantism. Take the third rail politics of abortion amongst conservative Protestants. If they want anything to be their signature politics it would be this, and they way they talk about it is revealing about how they understand the nature of and relationship between the moral and the political. And it’s a good entry point by which to begin talking about the very things two kingdom theology wants to say.
But suggest that the political answer to this political question is something akin to states’ rights and both the lifer and the choicer cringe. This is because they think of this issue in moral terms, and to allow a local magistrate to decide means that he might decide against their morality. Whatever their disagreements, the rightist-lifer and the leftist-choicer both heartily agree that “the ideal social arrangement involves universal submission to a single comprehensive morality,” if’s just a question of whose. Unfortunately, for those who see more virtue in local rule, there is no place at the table. Depending on which modernist you ask, too much misogyny or not enough love for youth.
Perhaps I’ve misread the situation, but didn’t Bonhoeffer readily admit that he couldn’t square his plans to kill Hitler with God’s Law–he admitted that plotting to kill Hitler was wrong in God’s eyes?
As I understand it, he saw his participation in the assassination plot as a temptation that he couldn’t resist, for which he needed to flee to Christ for forgiveness just like any other murderer. The act was against his Christian principles, not grounded in them.
Even while I admire his courage, I wonder how different Germany would be had he lived to aid in the post-war efforts to rebuild German society.
RL,
That may well have been DB’s ultimate confession, I don’t know. But whether he did or not, my point is that typically DB is held up by western Christians as a hero for his active resistance, up to and including his involvement in the plot to kill his magistrate. Given the unqualified biblical commands to submit to him and seek his profi, it would seem that this should be more troubling than inspiring. It’s one thing to resist Caesar when he demands we stop witnessing to the unfettered gospel, another to meet him on his own political grounds to tell him to stop (or start) whatever he’s doing (or not doing).
I think it’s telling that Bonhoeffer is a household hero, while a figure like Stuart Robinson is a virtual unknown. But I suppose going to the gallows for active resistence is more exciting than fleeing to Canada to save one’s skin standing up for the spirituality of the church.
What I said was this:
It is not controversial that salvation is larger than justification only. Not “larger than Christ’s righteousness”, larger than justification.
The Confession makes clear that sanctification is also an application of the righteousness of Christ to us (13.1, 16.3).
I was saying nothing more nor less than what WCoF 14.2 says:
Salvation is all of Christ and all through grace by faith alone. It includes (among other things) our justification, our sanctification, and our eternal life.
Just for the fun of it, I pull down some random books off the shelf. Here’s a blurb by that arch-heretic, R.C. Sproul:
Jeff,
I hear a lot from folks who advocate union that salvation is bigger than justification. This claim, and particularly where it leads, is of great concern to me. The reason is that generally what I’ve heard is that a bigger understanding of salvation is needed so what we don’t fall into the antinomianism that seems to follow making justification central.
I see this move on your part here as well. You move from a narrow view of salvation with justification at the center, to a broader view which include justification under the umbrella of union so that you have the justification (no pun intended) for engage in all sorts of works of righteousness, both personal and social. And this is why the centrality of justification usually goes with a strong condemnation of all forms of works righteousness.
So to answer you question, I do think the Bible reveals a saving righteousness that comes from Christ alone. I do not think it reveals a personal holiness — beyond the third use of the law — that reveals righteous plumbing. If the word of God is suppose to direct our entire life, why not plumbing, math, banking, farming — not just with ethical guidelines — but how to do those things well. It doesn’t. And that is why our confessions, which attempt to summarize the teaching of Scripture, have nothing about the arts, sciences, engineering, and agriculture.
I have brought this up before: http://oldlife.org/2009/04/18/if-the-bible-speaks-to-all-of-life-why-not-the-confession/
I agree with you. The third use of the Law is sufficient. It was on this basis that I defended you on GB against charges of antinomianism.
I do not consider myself repaid in kind.
I have no idea what your sample consists of, but the notion that salvation comprises more than justification is standard Reformed theology.
In some cases, that notion has been stretched beyond bounds (as we saw with the Federal Vision).
But arguing from abuse is no argument against the truth. Sanctification as a part of salvation is boilerplate. “Union with Christ” is not some theological novelty. It’s in the Confession (11.4). It’s in Calvin (Inst. 3.1.1). It’s in the Scripture.
As for “where it leads”, well, you know full well the perils of slippery-slope arguments. Sometimes they work out, sometimes not.
You won’t hear that from me. Antinomianism is a fruit of the sin nature, and shares that trait with legalism. It is a spiritual, not intellectual, malady.
See above.
Yes, I feel quite comfortable in taking this traditional Reformed view. Anthony Hoekema is a particularly helpful expositor of it (Saved by Grace). “Centrality of Union” is not the only Reformed view, but is certainly one of them. In my case, I am persuaded that our forgiveness of sins is received “in Christ” per Eph. 1.7,8: that is, justification is received by our being in Christ. I agree with Calvin in Inst. 3.1.1 that the blessings Christ procured for us become ours when He dwells in us.
This is dead wrong. My view is that to the extent that we engage in good works, we do so (a) through faith, (b) adding no merit thereby, and (c) empowered by the Spirit. WCoF Chap. 16 describes my view exactly.
Even were your analysis of my spiritual state correct, (and it is not), this would be an illogical argument. Other views also condemn all forms of works righteousness.
Likewise, just because some forms of “union” are corrupted into forms of works righteousness, it does not follow that all forms of “union” are so corrupted.
—
I should speak more personally here. In our discussions, I have deliberately focused on *ideas*. At all times, I have tried to assume the best motives of you, even when I’ve been uncomfortable with some of your ideas. That may not have come through perfectly, but my desire is to be the “loyal opposition.” I have reasons for this both ecclesiastical and personal.
In exchange, you have here accused me of something vile: a desire to promote works-righteousness. This, based on your “sense” of my meaning in a particular phrase, coupled with the fact that I believe the Bible speaks, in degrees greater or lesser, to all of life.
Do you think this is right? If a member of your church were so charged by another, would you entertain this charge based on a “sense” and a particular construal of where a phrase might lead based on your experience with others?
Baffled and saddened,
Jeff Cagle
Thanks for your thought-provoking points.
To answer your last: I don’t consider that Christ’s commands given to individuals must apply in the same way to governments writ large.
(Nor even on a smaller scale. If I were attacked, then turn the other cheek is the command. If my children are attacked, it isn’t.)
JRC
Nick,
Since you asked me about Hitler, I’ll ask you about theonomy. I suspect that you think your view is not theonomic. I am curious as to why you think yours isn’t. I’m not trying to be provocative. I’m really trying to understand where this desire for the Bible to be the rule for all of life, including the magistrate’s activities, comes from. And I’m also curious to see how those who advocate it think they are different from theonomists.
I know that a comment in a blog does not afford the space for compelling exegesis. But your rendering of Adam in the Garden is hardly convincing to me. In fact, I am not sure you find lots of support within our tradition, even among the Covenanters for that interpretation. Not only did Calvin think the ancient pagan philosophers got a lot right about politics, but I’ve heard that Samuel Rutherford believed conflating Christ’s mediatorial (church) and creational (the state) rule was to commit the Roman Catholic error.
But my biggest gun is a point that David VanDrunen made in his inaugural lecture on the two kingdoms. The church administers the Word of God. And the church does this by preaching the forgiveness of sins. That’s because the Bible reveals how sinners are forgiven. The state does not administer forgiveness. It administers justice. But if the state is to make the Word — which reveals forgiveness of sins — its standard, then the state cannot execute justice.
I think you can see some of the problem with blanket claims about Scripture as the basis for the state.
Jeff,
I apologize if you think I’ve gotten personal. I too have been talking about ideas. You and I hold ideas. So the ideas are personal. I disagree with some of your ideas. I didn’t say they were vile. But I regret that you took it personally.
I do get worked up about justification and union, and I wish you would consider something that I’m sure Frame would brand a genetic fallacy. Norman Shepherd’s views have been defended and are on-going in various circles. John Frame used to defend Shepherd. Frame is also a favorite of various defenders of FV. Now you are also something of a fan of Frame. And you, like him, maybe not personally, but intellectually, go down a number of paths that blur important distinctions, like worship and vocation, church and the world, and possibliy alien and personal righteousness. I am not accusing you of anything vile. What I am doing is raising questions about resemblances. People love to beat up on Federal Vision and then they adopt positions both on soteriology, and on reforming society, that are a lot like the Federal Vision. I wonder if you have thought about that, or why someone like Frame who has influenced you is highly regarded in certain FV circles.
Now the response to me might be, well Hart, you have lots of resemblances to Lutheranism. And my response is, so? When did Lutheranism become something worthy of anathemas?
But again, I apologize for offending you.
Thank you. I forgive you and apologize if I’ve provoked you in any way (please let me know).
I have actually thought a fair amount about the nexus of Frame – van Til – Murray – Shepherd – FV, and about my points of contact and points of departure with each.
Explaining my connection to Frame is not simple. I think these bullet-points would have to suffice:
* Perspectivalism is a helpful method for increasing one’s level of confidence in one’s conclusions. That is: if the normative, situational, and existential perspectives are in harmony, one can have a high degree of confidence; if not, then knowledge remains incomplete. It is not, however, the be-all and end-all of epistemology.
Importantly, perspectivalism is a good stab at recognizing the role of *inductive* reasoning in theological method. Van Til also shoved an oar in this direction, which led to his famous confrontation with Clark. It is unsurprising that the more vigorous “Frame is a heretic” memes that circulate on, say, the Puritan Board, find their source in the Trinity Review.
* I partially agree with RS Clark that Frame is latitudinarian, in that he gives others wide berth for disagreement. Put it this way: Frame would be the last to pull the trigger on a heresy charge, instead of the first. I consider that a function of personality, and not necessarily always a bad trait. I take Barnabus’ side in Acts 15.
* However, I disagree with RS Clark that Frame’s method is subjectivist. I believe he has mis-read Frame at this point. Easy to do, I suppose; while teaching Frame for an ethics class, I’ve had more than one student miss the whole point of perspectives. One poor lass represented it as “What does the Bible say? What does the world say? What do I say? Best two out of three.”
So I would criticize Frame in this regard: MP could be explained better by clarifying its relationship to induction over against deduction.
* The only defense of Shepherd I’ve seen from Frame is point 9 in the infamous Machen’s Warrior Children article, in which he complains about the justice of the process, not the rightness of the outcome. Hard to fault Frame for that.
* I am not monocovenantal. I agree with the confession’s traditional “covenant of works/covenant of grace” formulation in ch. 7 and so would take Kline’s approach more readily than Murray’s in this regard. (Actually, I think O. Palmer Robertson gets it just right, if my memory serves). I don’t know where Frame stands on this issue, and I’m not concerned to discover it; but I definitely depart from Shepherd in this regard.
* I agree with the Confession that “This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. ”
And so I would say that good works are a logically necessary consequence of salvation, but not a causative of it. That is: good works are necessary result of having been saved (post facto), but not a necessary precondition for it.
I would agree with the formula, “the indicative precedes the imperative.”
Or put another way: “They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. ”
I’m sufficiently allergic to works-righteousness that I dislike Gaffin’s terminology of “future justification”, even though I understand it and can sufficiently distinguish it from the FV doctrine that goes by the same name (I would prefer “future vindication” or “eschatologically revealed justification”). I also was uncomfortable with Sproul’s book, Lordship Salvation, although my memory of it is now … hm … about 20 years old.
I much prefer Jack Miller’s formulations that connect justification to sanctification, and I tend to teach Galatians in that manner. Obviously, the Sonship course didn’t entirely take; I just can’t seem to get past needing to defend myself sometimes.
Ironically, I view Union with Christ more as an antidote to legalism than to antinomianism. That is, only by seeing our sanctification as an application of Christ to us, can we avoid various legalistic tendencies. (Notwithstanding: legalism is a spiritual, not an intellectual issue).
* I admire and agree with Frame’s important separation between the word of God and the word of man. I think he is right to preserve the distinction between Scripture and everything else, even the Confession. NOT that we want to pit one against the other; we just need to be clear about the distinction between absolute truth and relative truth, as indeed the Confession requires (1.4,6,9,10).
* I agree with Frame that knowledge contains a component of application.
* I agree with Frame that all of life is governed by a framework of Scripture. However, there are times when he makes it sound as if that framework is a comprehensive Theory of Everything. I would place a greater accent on Christian liberty.
I don’t know whether this confirms or “disfirms” your suspicions about resemblance, but I yam what I yam. I’m not Frame, but I have points of contact with Frame. (So do you, for that matter)
Bottom line: I’m not a “fanboy” type of guy. The Scripture stands apart from the ideas of men, and judges them; and our job is to test those ideas, even if they come from our personal favorites or even our own intuitions. If tomorrow, Frame were to deny the Trinity, then my life would continue apace.
For a clearer picture, flip that around: the reason that FV was able to take root in Reformed circles is that it has substantial overlap with genuine Reformed doctrine. The problem is the differences. So it’s unsurprising that someone might latch on to certain legitimate ideas, like Union with Christ, and run out the door with them.
For what it’s worth, the central FV error in my book is their ecclesiology, identifying “the historical church” with the visible church. Frame would never have done this. (For a more Framian treatment of the church, see here). Out of that misidentification, all of the rest flows.
You’ve probably noticed that Calvin gets a lot more air-time in FV publications than Frame does. If we applied your logic, we would have to be suspicious of anyone who likes Calvin.
(Of course, I don’t “love to beat up on the FV” either. I disagree with them, and find the goings-on to be tragic. I genuinely like, for example, Xon Hostetter and have learned a thing or two from Jeff Meyers.)
I’m allergic to tu quoque arguments. I make them at times for effect, but I consider them to be a low form of humor, slightly below puns.
In any event, I’m just ecumenical enough to let Lutherans in the door.
But more seriously: if Frame’s blurring of distinctions between cult and culture causes him to mess up the RPW, then how is it that Luther’s hard distinction between cult and culture didn’t save him from messing up the RPW much, much more? You gotta admit, you would rather worship in Frame’s church than in a Lutheran church, no?
This is an argument about causation. We take away the putative cause (blurring of kingdoms), and the effect (bad RPW) continues. Doesn’t that undermine your view of the cause?
Regards,
Jeff Cagle
You’re the best, I really ejoyed reading this
Dr. Hart, I appreciate you pointing out this issue, but you did not answer Kloosterman’s point:
First, if the worldly kingdom (public life) is to be governed by that natural law revealed in creation, and if the Decalogue is nothing less than the republication of that natural law, then why would Christians not want the civil magistrate to proscribe what the Decalogue proscribes?
This is precisely where modern 2K theology is utterly incoherent. I strongly affirm that there are two kingdoms and that we must not confuse the spiritual kingdom with the kingdoms of this world. If you want to say that the Bible should not play any role in determining the laws of the land, then I would be willing to entertain and discuss the issue with you. But when you then go on to say that natural law should be the norm, you completely lose me. It is incoherent and inconsistent. Natural law is the Decalogue written on the heart of man. To appeal to one is to appeal to the other. Stop being irrational and let’s make some progress in this debate.
I don’t have time to read all the comments, but I read the first page and found this from you Dr. Hart:
Reed, the difficulty in relating NL to the Decalogue would seem to be the first table. WCF is right, I think, to say that nature reveals a god who deserves to be worshiped. But it doesn’t seem to be at all clear that creation reveals prohibitions against images, blasphemy, or sabbath observance. I can see possible implications from these from the created order. But no good and necessary consequence — from nature.
This is the heart of the issue and until you 2K advocates can think properly about this, I cannot join you. The WCF does not simply say that nature reveals a god who deserves to be worshiped. The Scripture reference the divines provided for 19.1 is Romans 2:14-15. The law of God is written on the hearts of all men. That is what natural law is and it is summarily comprehended in the Decalogue.
You do not determine what “natural law” is by snooping around in your or your neighbor’s fallen mind to see what remnants of God’s law remain written on the heart. This is theology 101 Dr Hart.
But my biggest gun is a point that David VanDrunen made in his inaugural lecture on the two kingdoms. The church administers the Word of God. And the church does this by preaching the forgiveness of sins. That’s because the Bible reveals how sinners are forgiven. The state does not administer forgiveness. It administers justice. But if the state is to make the Word — which reveals forgiveness of sins — its standard, then the state cannot execute justice.
Are you serious?? That is your biggest gun? That is the kind of logic being advocated by the leading natural law scholar in the 2K camp? Is VanDrunen aware that the Word also reveals justice? The depth of ineptitude astounds me.
So Brandon, if you’re so rational and theological, what do you say about burning heretics? They did in Calvin’s Geneva. You want the magistrate to follow the ten commandments. Well then what do you do with the first commandment and how do you keep your magistrate from driving out of the land the Mormons and Roman Catholics? That’s what Israel was supposed to do, republication style. And that is what the church is supposed to do under the keys of the kingdom. So again, what authority ordained by God to maintain the standards of Special revelation is allowed to pick among which laws to enforce.
If I sound irrational, you sound liberal the way you pick which laws are convenient for your theory.
Dr. Hart,
It’s that kind of attitude that doesn’t progress the discussion at all. It might very well be the case that none of the 10 commandments should be enforced by the civil government. That’s not what makes your view incoherent. What makes 2K nonsensical is this insistence upon “natural law” as the standard for civil government as opposed to the moral law. Natural law is the moral law. Special revelation further clarifies general revelation (which, according to Reformed theology, is distorted by sin). General revelation does not provide any information that special revelation does not. If you want to say the Bible does not apply to the civil government, then we can have a nice conversation about that. But stop trying to prop up your arguments on natural law. You just sound silly.
If I sound irrational, you sound liberal the way you pick which laws are convenient for your theory.
I’m not saying you sound irrational, I’m saying you are irrational.
I’m also not saying I have all the answers, but I am saying your answer is contradictory and wrong, so you need to come up with a different one. If you do not believe the Bible speaks to civil government, then you must also believe that God does not speak to civil government. You must maintain that God is ambivalent regarding civil government. And if that’s the case I’ll go with anarcho-capitalism.
And, btw, the nation of Israel was not the church (they were the nation of Israel). So, contra theonomy, whatever form of government or legislation they had is irrelevant to a discussion today about the role of God’s law in civil government.
Brandon, Well the assertion that I am irrational certainly clarifies things. Thanks for keeping it real. (But doesn’t the Bible say something about charity?)
The Bible says nothing about plumbing. How could a plumber possibly do his work by only consulting the Bible? And I’m irrational?
Brandon,
-> “General revelation does not provide any information that special revelation does not”
This seems implausible given the fact that special revelation says nothing about the laws of gravity, the axioms of mathematics, the general principles of engineering et al. Moral Law speaks with great particularity to moral issues, but it doesn’t really cover civic issues like speed limits, tax codes, building codes, etc. Whether or not you buy into 2k or not these realities seem inescapable.
Calling Dr. Hart irrational is a bit out of bounds don’t you think? There are plenty of godly men out there who have devoted themselves to theological training at a level that you have not attained who have taken these views through honest study and hold them in good conscience. Are you accusing guys like VanDrunen and Clark irrational or worse just because they disagree with you? Cmon. Nobody is calling you an irrational person for your Baptist, neo-Calvinistic convictions, we just disagree. Name-calling subverts any meaningful dialogue, and it makes it really hard to take anything you say seriously.
Dr. Hart,
Irrational is a word that accurately describes your view. I used it as a description, not an invective. If you think there is something wrong with being irrational, perhaps you should change your view
Your assumption is that someone learns how to be a plumber through general revelation. He does not. He learns how to be a plumber by observation (which is not how general revelation works).
is this thing on? I can’t seem to post…
Jed,
The fundamental problem here is assuming that anything we learn through observation is “general revelation.” We do not learn about the wrath of God from looking at trees. The wrath of God is revealed to us innately. General revelation is innate revelation written on the heart. (and Romans 1 clearly shows that this natural law shows men they deserve to die for being disobedient to parents – so I suppose a government founded on natural law would require such a death penalty?).
Moral Law speaks with great particularity to moral issues, but it doesn’t really cover civic issues like speed limits, tax codes, building codes, etc.
Well then I suppose the conclusion is that the government shouldn’t have anything to do with speed limits, tax codes, and building codes
(And to clarify, I strongly support 2K in the sense that the kingdoms of this world are not Christ’s spiritual kingdom. My simple point of objection is the argument that one is founded upon natural law, the other upon moral law.)
Calling Dr. Hart irrational is a bit out of bounds don’t you think?
I apologize if I called Dr. Hart irrational. I intended to communicate that his view of 2K is irrational.
There are plenty of godly men out there who have devoted themselves to theological training at a level that you have not attained who have taken these views through honest study and hold them in good conscience.
I suppose that says more about theological training than anything else
Are you accusing guys like VanDrunen and Clark irrational or worse just because they disagree with you? Cmon.
No, I’m not accusing their view of being irrational because it disagrees with mine. I’m accusing it of being irrational because it is not rational.
Nobody is calling you an irrational person for your Baptist, neo-Calvinistic convictions, we just disagree.
That’s because my views aren’t irrational. And if they are, please let me know, because I have no intention of being irrational and if I am holding a contradictory view, I would appreciate exhortation.
Name-calling subverts any meaningful dialogue, and it makes it really hard to take anything you say seriously.
As said above, it is not name calling. I specifically chose my words to communicate something particular about Hart’s argument. Perhaps his argument should have been separated from his person, but the language regarding the argument is not name calling.
Hrm, I don’t seem to be able to post any links:
re: Math, please see
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=55
re: the laws of gravity, please see
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=19
and
apuritansmind.com/GordonClark/McMahonSummaryPhilosophyScience.htm
I would love to hear either of your critiques of my review of VanDrunen’s book. http://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/spectacles-prescribed-a-review-of-vandrunens-a-biblical-case-for-natural-law/
Your assumption is that someone learns how to be a plumber through general revelation. He does not. He learns how to be a plumber by observation (which is not how general revelation works).
Observation of what?
You seem to admit that there are two kingdoms (which ought not be confused). That must mean there are two books governing each. If one doesn’t learn a general skill through a general book then the only thing left is a special book. So, what does a plumber observe?
That must mean there are two books governing each.
Uhm, no, that does not follow. That is your presupposition. The Bible can speak to both. You may say the Bible does not apply to earthly kingdoms, but then you must conclude that no revelation does, that it is a free for all. Which, again, if that’s the case I’ll go with anarcho-capitalism.
A plumber observes nature. But general revelation is not to be equated with observing nature.
And aside from that issue is the simple fact that you cannot derive an ought from an is. A plumber may observe from nature that clogging toilets causes them to overflow. But he cannot then say it should be against the law to clog your toilet.
Brandon, It must have been one of your irrational moments.
Brandon, huh? As Zrim asks, observing water and pipes — isn’t that part of creation and isn’t God revealed in creation?
isn’t that part of creation and isn’t God revealed in creation?
General revelation is innate and propositional, revealed in the hearts of men directly. Men do not learn about the wrath of God by observing leaves on a tree.
(btw Dr. Hart, I have a comment that says it is awaiting moderation)
Brandon,
Ah, so your 2K is of the 1K variety: two kingdoms, one book.
So when 2Kers say that very different poli-econo-ideologies can legitimately co-exist you think that’s the same as an illegitimate “free for all.” So when you and have lunch and the bills come, and I choose frugality in my tipping choice, and you choose generosity, both perfectly biblical virtues, the one of us who can live with the other’s view/practice is irrational? Fine, but when people tell me I’m being either a tight-wad or too loose in my tipping I just consider plain old rude. Paying our bill’s is a matter of legitimate scrutiny, but what we tip isn’t. I’m fine with your anarcho-capitalism, just remember to pay your bills.
Brandon,
Your understanding of law and how it is to be administered is too narrow. Violations of natural law do not always have moral consequences unless it is there is a violation of natural law that pertains to morality.
Anyway, Christian plumbing is my turf here, your talking to a 4th generation plumber (I worked on the business end mostly though). I would argue that observation and natural revelation and all true domains of human knowledge are inextricably linked. General revelation functions to point to a Creator who sets up a functional cosmos; it also informs us on how the cosmos functions. All cosmic functions necessarily operate within the laws of nature whether they are moral or amoral. Plumbing is entirely dependent on natural revelation/natural law even though it is amoral. Let me explain…
There are many laws of nature that have to me navigated in even the most simple plumbing process such as soldering copper pipe which has taken mankind a few thousand years to master. It takes a understanding of the metallurgical properties of copper that make it desirable as a potable water delivery system: copper is malleable and resistant to corrosion and relatively abundant and easy to extract (which makes it inexpensive in relation to other non corrosive metals). Soldering itself requires an understanding of welding, which in this case requires the binding of two different metals to form a seal sufficiently tight so as to be impenetrable by water molecules, which again is governed by fundamental laws of chemistry. I could go on to explain how hydro-mechanical principles govern waterflow, but I won’t bore you with more details. I am sure though that nearly every vocational discipline, including the justice system interact so much with natural law that it would be staggering to draw out the processes in entirety.
The problem with arguing against general revelation as a governing principle for human knowing is that you don’t have many defensible alternatives. Even at a moral level, general revelation is sufficient to convict men of wrongdoing, or of acting in a way that violates the cosmic order as God created it. This is true of amoral laws as well. If you violate an amoral law of hydrodynamics you will necessarily have a breakdown in the function of a plumbing system, which means the breakdown must be properly addressed to restore function. Similarly, if you violate a moral law you have a breakdown in the moral-legal system bound up in the function of the cosmos, which again must be addressed to bring resolution. Yeah, there is overlap between natural law and the Decalogue, but the Decalogue, in its moral-spiritual particularity is not comprehensive enough to govern the natural realm in entirety. Natural Law is capable of governing the secular realm sufficiently, even if it is administered imperfectly by fallen humans. Natural Law however is insufficient to govern the Church which is why we have special revelation to guide us.
Is the 2k position really that irrational?
Brandon,
I browsed through the links you posted. I doubt many self-respecting scientists or mathematicians would agree with the authors of these articles. The peer-review process would likely dismantle Clark’s statements like “Science is False.” I seriously doubt that his propositions are even falsifiable, which would necessarily make them unscientific. Sorry, but this article is garbage science at best. Clark is probably a great guy, but his science isn’t.
Zrim,
So when 2Kers say that very different poli-econo-ideologies can legitimately co-exist you think that’s the same as an illegitimate “free for all.”
I see you’re eager to categorize and discard me Zrim. I haven’t even made the argument that a free for all is illegitimate. I have only said that claiming the Bible does not say anything in regards to the civil government leaves you with a free for all. Appeal to “natural law” is meaningless. What you are saying is that civil government should be determined by the preferences of individuals. That’s fine, just don’t call that “natural law.”
Oh Jed, you should actually read Clark. He’s not claiming his arguments are scientific. That’s the whole point
Your understanding of law and how it is to be administered is too narrow. Violations of natural law do not always have moral consequences unless it is there is a violation of natural law that pertains to morality.
A law by definition has regards to morality. It is a statement of what ought and ought not to be done. Please do not confuse the “law” of gravity with what we are talking about here. They are two very different things.
Your entire post says nothing against anything I have said. All you have argued is that people observe lots of things in order to do lots of things. That’s irrelevant.
The problem with arguing against general revelation as a governing principle for human knowing is that you don’t have many defensible alternatives.
Perhaps you should re-read what I have said. Nowhere did I argue against general revelation as a governing principle for human knowing. I have simply taken care to properly define and understand what general revelation is. General revelation is not “observing water in pipes.”
Is the 2k position really that irrational?
Yes. The Bible teaches that “natural law” = “the law of God written on the heart of man.” If you want to make your argument that earthly kingdoms should govern based upon their observation of the created world, then go for it. But, once again, don’t call that “natural law.”
In regards to Clark and general revelation being innate and propositional: You do not need to accept that point for my argument against your use of natural law to stand. Even if you think natural law is something we observe by looking at plants, at the very least it includes the law of God written on the heart (that’s where you’re getting the word “law” from – otherwise its just “natural information”), even if it also includes other information. The most explicit discussions of general revelation in the Bible (Rom 1-2) say that man knows he deserves death for violating the 10 commandments. Thus, if you are going to be consistent, and Biblical, you must argue that natural law teaches us to execute those who raise a hand against their mother.
Again, you may rationally argue that 2K requires civil government to not be informed by the clarity of the Bible, but you cannot at the same time hold that they should be informed by general revelation.
Brandon,
We must be using different dictionaries. I am really not sure how you can maintain that functionally physical laws and moral laws operate on different planes. They can be violated, but there are consequences. Yes, I do agree that natural law includes the moral code written on the human heart, but that is simply because these exist in a larger cosmic system where God created a good universe that worked just as he designed it to. It is precisely because of this that governments operate off of general revelation even if imperfectly and/or unknowingly. Why else would we have similarities in Hammurabi and Moses, Roman law and American law. Discontinuities are a given, but the commonality of law, and prevasively political nature of human history even in the absence of special revelation testifies to the sufficiency of natural law in the political arena.
Now you’re starting to get it Jed. Yes, you are equivocating on the word “law” if you think it equally applies to the law of God and to the “law” of gravity.
And since you mentioned dictionaries, let’s look at Meriam Webster:
That is what law means when we talk about the law of God and natural law.
way down in definition 6 is a different definition for things like the “law” of gravity:
God’s law is not God’s law because God saw what would naturally occur if we committed adultery and he wanted to protect us from those natural consequences. It is God’s law because He sovereignly imposed it on those bearing His image as a rule for what ought and ought not to be done.
Furthermore, are you suggesting that the “law” of gravity is just a statement of what ought to be done? Are you suggesting that we should all obey the law of gravity, meaning we should not violate it by floating around? I didn’t think so.
In sum:
one definition is prescriptive, the other is descriptive.
I am not arguing for equal application here a am arguing for congruence even if the moral law has greater precedent in God’s political economy. This doesn’t diminish the coherence between natural laws and God’s revealed laws, they both speak of a competent, just Lawgiver. They are bound up in cosmic function physically and morally respectively because they are reflective of the coherent nature of God himself. It’s not as if prohibition against adultery is somehow arbitrary, it is reflective of the character of God. So in a sense God’s prohibition of adultery is to prevent us from the natural consequences of acting in a way that is at odds with his intent in creation. The prescriptive nature of moral law is something that I believe flows from the descriptive nature of natural law. In other words “don’t act out in a way that is at odds with the way God designed creation to work.”
As to gravity, of course it’s a descriptive law, and one that in fact can’t be broken. However many have attempted to break it at their own peril, thus confirming the irrevocability of the law. I would advise all gravity delinquents to be sure to land on something soft.
Jed, I don’t think I can make it any plainer than simply quoting the dictionary. If you can’t see the obvious distinction there’s really no point in discussing the issue.
Ahh, I see. You are on a discussion board voicing a contrary opinion that when disagreed with you either a) accuse others of being irrational because they are not rational in Brandon’s universe or b) you no longer wish to discuss a disagreement you bring up because someone is unconvinced by your arguments. It’s the classic heads I win, tails you loose scenario. Nicely played.
Jed, the distinction here is not between God’s law and natural law, but between descriptive laws and prescription: is v. ought.
The law of gravity cannot be broken (better: has not been broken to date) because it is a fundamental property of the way things are.
The law, “Do not murder” … the law, “Don’t eat the fruit!” … can be and was broken.
That’s because the character of ethical oughts is to say, “one should do X”; the character of scientific is is to say, “If one does Y, then Z will occur.” … but there is no corresponding way to say, “If A happens, then one should do B”
If you’re interested in further research, here are some leads:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/#NatNonNatSup
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/
JRC