Ken Myers on the Bible
January 7th, 2010 by Darryl G. Hart
Many years ago – too many for those of his vintage – Ken Myers, the talking voice behind Mars Hill Audio, wrote a piece that should be more widely known and read, “Christianity, Culture, and Common Grace.” It is available in pdf at the Mars Hill website. Ken is one of the best students of culture, as attested by his book, All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes, a work in which he draws explicitly upon the arguments of Meredith Kline about cult and culture. (Kerux readers beware). Those same insights inform Ken’s essay on common grace and lead him to write the following about the sufficiency of Scripture:
We don’t hear much about the “insufficiency of Scripture.” But it is an important point to keep in mind when thinking about Christianity and culture. Scripture does not present itself as the only source of truth about all matters. It does not even present itself as a source of some truth about everything. It presents itself as the only authoritative source of truth about some things, and they are the most important things. But the Bible does not claim to teach us the fundamentals of arithmetic, of biology, of engineering, or of music. About most of the matters of culture, the Bible has little explicit to say. Many people insist on taking implicit statements from Scripture (or allegedly implicit statements) and deducing from them an entire theory. This is often done in the name of a high view of Scripture, but it is rather to treat Scripture as a magic book. It is a superstitious view of Scripture, not the view God has himself presented. The belief that all the blueprints for all of life are in Scripture is in part derived from the notion that reason and general revelation are not to be trusted.
Makes sense to me.
I suppose so. Or to diminish the latter in order to make room for the former (Pelagius). Or even … to consign “very good” over to the common realm and “totally depraved” to the sacred?
Could it be possible that you are overly optimistic?
In any event, in defense of my “something close to pessimism”, I would argue that there is a structural link between Calvin’s view of the fall, as marring man’s nature, and his view of civil government. In his view, the magistrate is obligated to the 10 Commandments *as the means of determining right from wrong*. Inst. 4.20.6 and 9 and especially 15-16 demonstrate this quite clearly, in my view.
“it alone” means the moral law, identical in content to the testimony of natural law and conscience.
So … if pessimist I am to be, at least I shall having Calvin as a drinking partner.
JRC
While you and Calvin are hoisting frothy ones, I’ll sit over here with Uncle Abe, who wrote a pamphlet rejecting the original language of Belgic 36:
We oppose this Confession out of complete conviction, prepared to bear the consequences of our convictions, even when we will be denounced and mocked on that account as unReformed.
We would rather be considered not Reformed and insist that men ought not to kill heretics, than that we are left with the Reformed name as the prize for assisting in the shedding of the blood of heretics.
It is our conviction: 1) that the examples which are found in the Old Testament are of no force for us because the infallible indication of what was or was not heretical which was present at that time is now lacking.
2) That the Lord and the Apostles never called upon the help of the magistrate to kill with the sword the one who deviated from the truth. Even in connection with such horrible heretics as defiled the congregation in Corinth, Paul mentions nothing of this idea. And it cannot be concluded from any particular word in the New Testament, that in the days when particular revelation should cease, that the rooting out of heretics with the sword is the obligation of magistrates.
3) That our fathers have not developed this monstrous proposition out of principle, but have taken it over from Romish practice.
4) That the acceptance and carrying out of this principle almost always has returned upon the heads of non-heretics and not the truth but heresy has been honored by the magistrate.
5) That this proposition opposes the Spirit and the Christian faith.
6) That this proposition supposed that the magistrate is in a position to judge the difference between truth and heresy, an office of grace which, as appears from the history of eighteen centuries, is not granted by the Holy Spirit, but is withheld.
We do not at all hide the fact that we disagree with Calvin, our Confessions, and our Reformed theologians.
And I’ll be the one with a copy of the 20th Century revision of 36 in my hands:
*In the original text this sentence read as follows: “Their office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also that they protect the sacred ministry, and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship, that the kingdom of antichrist may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted.” The Christian Reformed Church Synod of 1910, recognizing the unbiblical teaching, contained in this sentence, concerning the freedom of religion and concerning the duty of the state to suppress false religion, saw fit to add an explanatory footnote. The Christian Reformed Church Synod of 1938, agreeing with the Christian Reformed Church Synod of 1910 as to the unbiblical character of the teaching referred to, but recognizing a conflict between the objectionable clauses in the Article and its footnote, decided to eliminate the footnote and to make the change in the text of the Article which appears above, corresponding to the change adopted in 1905 by the General Synod of the “Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland.” (See Christian Reformed Church Acts of Synod, 1910, pp.9,104-105; also Christian Reformed Church Acts of Synod, 1938, p. 17.). The Christian Reformed Church Synod of 1958 approved the following substitute statement which has been referred to other Reformed Churches accepting the Belgic Confession as their creed for evaluation and reaction: “And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, the civil rulers have the task, in subjection to the law of God, while completely refraining from every tendency toward exercising absolute authority, and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them and with the means belonging to them, to remove every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship, in order that the Word of God may have free course, the kingdom of Jesus Christ may make progress, and every anti-christian power may be resisted.”
I suppose so. Or to diminish the latter in order to make room for the former (Pelagius). Or even … to consign “very good” over to the common realm and “totally depraved” to the sacred?
No, “very good” and “totally depraved” belong to the created order. Redeemed creatures are first created, then redeemed, which means they are “very good, totally depraved and a royal priesthood,” as in simil justus et peccator.
Could it be possible that you are overly optimistic?
Could be. But I take my inspiration from the book of Ecclesiastes, which says there is nothing new under the sun and all is vanity. I have a low view of man and his projects, sacred or secular. The human condition does not improve or worsen as time either progresses or retreats. That’s how an amil Calvinist does total depravity after affirming the very goodness of the imago Dei.
I’m surprised that you are cool with “And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, the civil rulers have the task, in subjection to the law of God…”
I thought that you didn’t believe in advancement of society, or think that it was the civil ruler’s business to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God?
But in any event, I don’t want to quarrel. I’m not actually in full support of Calvin’s position; I’m just noting that his view on the Fall is connected to his view of the magistrate.
And, I’m noting that I find myself in his camp on the way of articulating the Fall.
—
What’s with having a low view of man and his projects? Weren’t you just telling me that *I* have a low view of man? I’m so confused.
JRC
What’s with having a low view of man and his projects? Weren’t you just telling me that *I* have a low view of man? I’m so confused.
Again, the confusion owes to the confusing of the temporal and eternal. Man can make good society but not heaven on earth. The choice isn’t between cynicism and optimism when it comes to human ability—there’s also a skepticism.
So I’m a “pessimist”, but you’re a “skeptic.” OK, if it’s important to you to be able to point to a difference between us, then I’ll have to accept those as labels.
But for my money, the difference between a pessimist and a skeptic is consonants and vowels.
JRC
[...] Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » Ken Myers on the Bible [...]
[...] Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » Ken Myers on the Bible [...]
[...] Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » Ken Myers on the Bible [...]
[...] Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » Ken Myers on the Bible [...]
[...] Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » Ken Myers on the Bible [...]