Carl Trueman’s comments on Dinesh D’Souza appointment as president of King’s College have prompted further discussion. In a post that responds to the charge that Trueman was guilty of applying seminary standards to a liberal arts college, the Lord Protector of WTS explains that the real confusion is on the other side — namely, promoting a comprehensive world and life view that is supposedly free from doctrinal considerations of the kind that divide Protestants and Roman Catholics. Trueman writes:
If a liberal arts college says that it teaches such a thing, then doctrine is surely important. All world and life views are doctrinal, after all; and a Christian one is presumably constituted by Christian doctrine in some basic way Further, as the very term indicates total comprehensiveness, the teaching of such a thing does not seem to me to require any less clarity on doctrine at a foundational level than the curriculum at a seminary would so do (albeit the curricula at the two types of institution might be markedly very different). . . .
Just to be clear: all this `Christian world life view’ talk is not my language. I am myself very uncomfortable with it because it fails to respect difference among Christians; but I do not consider it inappropriate to ask those who do use this language with such confidence to explain it to me; to explain, for example, why they use the singular not the plural; and what are the doctrines that can be set to one side as matters indifferent when constructing this singular Christian world life view?
For myself, I am very comfortable with the view of the world expressed in the Westminster Standards. The theology therein profoundly expresses my view of life, the universe and all that. Does that mean I deny the name Christian to someone who is, say, an Arminian or a Lutheran or an Anabaptist or a Catholic? . . . .
The result: my concern for doctrinal indifferentism at a Christian College arises not out of a seminary-college category confusion but rather out of my belief that one huge mythological misconception is simply being allowed to continue unchallenged: that there is `a [singular] Christian life and world view’ that can be separated as some kind of Platonic ideal from the phenomena of particular confessional commitment, whether Reformed, Anabaptist or whatever. It is time to come clean: we need to speak of Christian life and world views (plural) and we need to acknowledge that those who talk of such in the singular are more than likely privileging their particular view of the world (including their politics — Left and Right) as the normative Christian one, and thus as being essentially beyond criticism and scrutiny — whether that view is doctrinally complex or indifferent to all but being `born again.’
Again, this is very well said and evokes Oldlife objections to neo-Calvinism. How many times does you need to point to the Christian Reformed Church and see that melange of bullish worldviewism and doctrinal incompetence before establishing the unreliability of a Reformed world and life view? How many times do we need to hear about a Reformed view of “Will & Grace” before we begin to ask about a Reformed view of the sacred assembly on the Lord’s Day? Granted, keepers of the Dooyeweerdian flame will insist that King’s College and D’Souze are not the real deal; their worldviews do not run on the high octane of Reformed philosophy. That only raises the more basic objection of who made philosophers God? When did epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics trump the doctrines of God, man, Christ, salvation, the Holy Spirit, and the church? (Hint: 1898.)
Meanwhile, further indications of the unreliability of neo-Calvinism come from David Bahnsen, the son of THE Bahnsen, whose flame for neo-Calvinism drew energy from project of establishing Christ’s Lordship over all areas of life. According to Bahnsen, who is a financial planner living in Southern California:
The brilliant Dinesh D’Souza is the new President of King’s College in New York. Dinesh is a good friend, a superb scholar, an accomplished apologist, and in my opinion, a wonderful pick for this fantastic college to help provide vision and guidance as they advance into the next phase of their institutional development. Dinesh also is a Roman Catholic, though he is married to an evangelical, attends an evangelical church, and has been widely accepted in evangelical circles for several years as a respected thought leader. Dinesh is better known as a socio-political commentator than he is a theologian, but of course most people do not regard the primary qualification in the job of “college president†to be “theologianâ€.
The hiring of Dinesh D’Souza is an exciting thing for me as one who is very fond of the work King’s College is doing, and very fond of Dinesh in particular. I also consider the provost at King’s College, Dr. Marvin Olasky, to be one of the premier intellects in American society. I have often said that his The Tragedy of American Compassion is an utter masterpiece, and I believe his work at both World magazine and King’s College to be inspiring examples of Kingdom-building. Marvin is both a mentor to me and dear friend. I am deeply grateful to know him.
To the objections that Trueman raises, Bahnsen displays the nakedness of the neo-Calvinist royal jewels:
However, the implicit lesson in this response to Dinesh’s hiring is that Reformational theology is exclusively about soteriology and sacramentology. This is patently absurd. There is a valuable and vital element to catholic social thought which is undeniably important in worldview training. The contributions of a Dinesh D’ Souza in the contemporary scene go far beyond those things that Trueman considers so trivial (you know, unimportant disciplines like economics and political science). True, Dinesh may not line up with a lot of Protestant thought on the really, really important things like predestination and church discipline (though perhaps he does, or perhaps he will), but maybe a little more genuinely Reformed thought is needed here? For those of us who see our evangelical Reformed theology as a comprehensive world and life view, maybe, just maybe, Dinesh is far more qualified than the Carl Truemans of the world could possibly understand.
So now political science and economics have pushed aside philosophy. At least epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics have some otherworldiness going for them. But as is typical of the immanentizers of the eschaton, disciplines like politics and economics are even more vital in establishing Christ’s reign.
Maybe the real lesson is that justification is an idea with consequence.
225 Comments
Jeff:
Earlier you said, “Better, by far, to distinguish between “faith and worship†and “everything else.†That’s close to the notion of cult and culture, but it focuses on actions instead of kingdoms.”
The WCF doesn’t merely focus on actions. It articulates who rules over these two realms of activity. The church has jurisdiction over “faith and worship.” The civil magistrate has jurisdiction over “everything else.” Here’s the evidence. WCF 31.2: “It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God and government of his church.” Not only does the church have jurisdiction over faith and worship. Its jurisdiction is exclusive–the civil magistrate may not intrude upon it. WCF 23.3: “Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and Sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith.” Matters of faith and worship are to be governed by the church.
Everything else is governed by the civil magistrate and, as mentioned earlier, believers ought to follow the civil magistrate’s edicts so long as they are not “contrary” to scripture. In the same way that the civil magistrate is not supposed to intrude upon churchly affairs, the church is not to intrude upon civil affairs. WCF 31.4: “Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs…[except in extraordinary circumstances].”
Two realms. Two rulers. Two kingdoms.
Jeff, your point is fair but you don’t seem to want to live by it. Yes, the Bible does say something about marriage and politics, hardly a lot the way that either Dr. Laura or Aristotle do. I’d also say that the Bible speaks to these matters in cultic ways — what believers are supposed to do, not 50 ways to have a happy home.
But you seem to want to run from these two instances to saying that the entire distinction is too rigid and doesn’t work. Which means you want to include (again like Frame) language as something that exists in both cult and culture. And from there I presume we could say that because humans are also in both spheres, overlap is everywhere.
First, I don’t think you acknowledge the importance of the distinction and its usefulness for letting the church be the church. Second, I don’t think you acknowledge that somethings truly are religious and cultic and are not cultural as in some are holy and others are common. And third, I don’t think you acknowledge the poor reasoning and analysis that ensues from blurring the two.
And to add to RL’s point, the confession is also clear about the distinction when it comes to Sabbath observance. Cultural things are fine on every day except Sunday. At that point, they become profane. If you blur cult and culture, you have no Sabbath theology. Funny how sabbatarianism seems to decline in relation to transformationalism’s advance.
Jeff, I appreciate your points, but simply stated, the complexities you point out are precisely the reason a certain measure of rigidity is needed. Because believers (unlike unbelievers) have a foot in both kingdoms it doesn’t seem to help things by letting the lines blur.
To keep the comparison going, does it really help anything to let the categories of law and gospel blur? If we accept that we are by nature hard wired for law, and if we accept that law is deadly to us post-Adam, it seems to me that we’d want a rigid distinction made to keep us from toxic inclinations.
Better, by far, to distinguish between “faith and worship†and “everything else.†That’s close to the notion of cult and culture, but it focuses on actions instead of kingdoms.</i.
Again, I don't see how we distinguish between actions if we don't distinguish between kingdoms. It seems like saying we should determine what is adultery without talking about marriage.
The original post was about a Catholic being named President of an Evangelical College and the seeming indifference of the College to the doctrinal differences between the two. This seems to be reconciled (in the minds of the powers that be at the College) in the pursuit of a Christian world and life view while diminishing the importance of doctrine to the more important task of bringing Christian convictions to the cultural activities of believers. The 2K confessionalist believes that cultural matters will take care of themselves and we do not have to wear our Christian convictions on our sleeves when we are assuming our vocational duties in the culture. It is better, according to the confessionalists, to utilize natural law thinking in the public square and they advocate stopping the Christian and worldview nonsense. This is polarizing in the culture and really accomplishes no good. Non-Christians, who are utilizing their reason properly, can come to the same conclusions about justice when dealing with problems in the culture.
Confessionalists have an aversion to Philosophical Theology because of the problems inherent in trying to integrate theology with a certain philosophical viewpoint (there is historical precedence for this). One has to bring world and life view thinking into the debates covered in this field. However, it seems to me, that world and life view presuppositions are inherent in confessionalism (notably from the reformational heritage of both Calvinists and Lutherans) and they bring this into their thinking about doctrine and what is important to include in confessional statements.
Did not Scottish Common Sense Realism try to deal with this problem of philosophical speculation in Theology? Is there not a place for Philosophical Theology in Academia?
RL: It’s a powerful argument, but I still disagree. The problem is that your evidence isn’t dispositive, and you gloss over evidence to the contrary, specifically the section in WLC on the decalogue and also WCoF 1.6. In the end, the line drawn between church and state does not divide up the same way as the line drawn between “faith and worship” and “other.”
Let’s take the 1789 confession as baseline, since we agree (I think) that the earlier Reformed confessions had none of the current 2k thought in mind.
You state, rightly, that the church is given exclusive jurisdiction in matters of faith and worship.
You then assume that the state is given exclusive jurisdiction in all other matters.
But let’s take the case of a church member who is stealing. Who has jurisdiction? The state and the church *both* do, in different ways. The church has the powers of both judicial declaration and also of discipline. Thus, WLC 98ff, which binds all men to the obedience of the decalogue, and Christians in particular in their activities *both* sacred and secular. The jurisdiction of the church extends into the secular by virtue of her power to declare that one must, e.g., respect ones superiors in the commonwealth (WLC 124) or refrain from immoderate use of meat and drink (WLC 136).
Or, let’s take the organization of ministry. That is neither a matter of “faith”, nor yet of “worship” — it falls in fact under WCoF 1.6 — and yet it is clearly within the jurisdiction of the church and not the state. Ditto deaconal ministries.
The point is, the church in its normal functioning operates more broadly than in the two narrow areas of “faith” and “worship.”
And outside of those two narrow areas, the regulative principle does not hold. In fact, it is necessary for the “light of nature” — common grace reasoning — to be employed.
What’s the conclusion? That the line between “faith” and “worship” on the one hand, and common-grace activity on the other, is NOT equivalent to the jurisdictional line between the church and the state.
I agree with you that there is a jurisdictional line between the church and state; I just don’t agree that such line can be sloppily renamed as “cult v. culture.”
DGH: But you seem to want to run from these two instances to saying that the entire distinction is too rigid and doesn’t work. Which means you want to include (again like Frame) language as something that exists in both cult and culture. And from there I presume we could say that because humans are also in both spheres, overlap is everywhere.
Here’s my difference with Frame: he is content to leave the pieces on the cutting-room floor and let the reader pick them up and assemble them for himself. I respect that approach in some ways (mainly because it models allowing the reader freedom of conscience!), but I also think it may get him into trouble in some ways.
By contrast, I would *not* wish to say that overlap is everywhere or that there are no lines. Rather, by trying to find lines that always hold, instead of lines that are “rigid” but admit of exceptions, I’m trying to pick up the pieces and assemble them in a tighter fashion. That’s part of being a math guy.
I think the line between “faith and worship” and “other” is probably a good one, and it admits of much less exception than “cult” and “culture.”
Even your followup shows the kind of problematic exception-making I mean:
DGH: And to add to RL’s point, the confession is also clear about the distinction when it comes to Sabbath observance. Cultural things are fine on every day except Sunday. At that point, they become profane.
So … you don’t eat on Sunday? Or talk on the telephone? Or sit, stand, or lie down? Those are all common activities, not cultic, right?
Ah, but they are *exceptions*. The line between cult and culture is rigid — except when it isn’t. You see the problem — you have to gloss over the exceptions when you say that cult and culture are separate.
To your numbered points:
(1) I don’t think you acknowledge the importance of the distinction [between cult and culture] and its usefulness for letting the church be the church.
I can see using a cult/culture distinction as a matter of wisdom. I just don’t think it’s a matter of rigid doctrine.
The cult/culture distinction is useful, broadly speaking; not useful in some specific cases; and not binding in any event.
Back at you: I don’t think you acknowledge that your articles hold people to the cult/culture standard as if it were settled Scriptural doctrine.
(2) I don’t think you acknowledge that somethings truly are religious and cultic and are not cultural as in some are holy and others are common.
I would say that activities cannot be separated from the motives that drive them. Fasting might be cultic; it might be medical. Obedience to the moral law might be an act of worship (Rom 12.1-2), or it might be an act of idolatry, or it might be simply fitting in to one’s culture.
(3) I don’t think you acknowledge the poor reasoning and analysis that ensues from blurring the two.
You’re somewhat right. I see poor reasoning and analysis going on in certain quarters (not referring to present company; names withheld), but most of that I chalk up to failing to distinguish between Word of God and word of man, or what Zrim calls narcissism.
I don’t see blurring cult and culture as the necessary root of all evil. The Genevan psalter blended cult and culture just fine.
Zrim: To keep the comparison going, does it really help anything to let the categories of law and gospel blur? If we accept that we are by nature hard wired for law, and if we accept that law is deadly to us post-Adam, it seems to me that we’d want a rigid distinction made to keep us from toxic inclinations.
I think that comparison is excellent for illustrating my point. Now that you’ve set up the rigid distinction between law and gospel, you are now led into saying “law is deadly to us post-Adam.” The paradigm has taken over — but the data present a more complicated picture. Which is why the Reformed folk have three uses of the law and not merely one.
And in that third use of the law, the law is *not* deadly to us, but “of great use”, as the Confession says.
Is the law/gospel distinction a useful one? Certainly. Is it the final word on the law? No.
[I'm trying to be careful here -- I do not for an instant believe that our justification depends upon our following of the law. There *is* a rigid law/gospel distinction in the matter of justification.]
Likewise, I think “cult/culture” has the potential to become a paradigm that overwhelms the data. Can it be useful to distinguish cult and culture? Yes. I would say that in the last two years, thanks to you guys, I have become more sensitive to ways in which the church and state intrude on each other’s jurisdictions. But I’ve also seen the cult/culture distinction be used as if it were the final word, and it’s just not.
Jeff, stealing doesn’t prove your point. The church and the state have rules on each. The details of those rules would be vastly different. But the church’s jurisdiction only extends to Christian theifs. And it is not at all clear that if the church convicts a treasurer for stealing funds from offerings that the church would turn the stealer over to the state.
What is the organization of ministry? If it’s polity, there is not an overlap. Church government is not an preferential matter. Jure divino Presbyteriianism requires presbyterian polity.
As for my Sunday practices, eating is an act of necessity. And I’ve often thought that using a phone or a light on Sunday employs someone else and should be avoided unless an emergency. Whether I am as principled about that as I should be is another matter.
But your examples do not remove the rigidity of the differences between cult and culture. And to say that it depends on the heart is just another example of pietism. I do agree with the importance of motivation. But what a 2k confessionalist is also trying to assert is the importance of external actions and matters. Baptism really is different from a bath and it’s not just the motivation. And juggling really is profane in the Lord’s Day service.
John, lots of Reformed worldviewers are very critical of older Reformed theologians’ appropriation of Scottish Common Sense realism.
I think there is a place for philosophical theology. But it is a specialized discipline and hardly the pocket calculator that is being recommended in the form of a Christian world and life view for every average believer.
It is my understanding that Scottish Common Sense Realism tried to establish reasons for why we can trust our ability to understand the objective truths found in God’s Word and the material world that God made. The Empiricists were arguing against our ability to do this and were limiting “truth” to our subjective interpretations. Objective truth is an illusion to empiricists. Thomas Reid, in his dialog with David Hume, saw this and knew it would undermine the Christian faith if thought through to its logical conclusions. He then tried to “prove” how common sense establishes certain axioms and principles related to probable truths and certain truths. By these “truths” we can trust the common sense notion that God would not play tricks on His Creation and creatures but gives us the ability to discern and know Him (objective truth). These are gifts given to all creatures analogically made in His Image. To speculate otherwise is to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. It is something our fallen nature is driven to do.
I do realize that “Reformed worldviewers are very critical of older Reformed theologians appropriation of SCSR.” And that was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps they were wrong in their assessment of SCSR. I do not know the reasons why they were critical of it but that is why there is a place for Philosophical Theology. These things have to be argued about in institutions of higher learning in order to defend the faith against fallen philosophical speculation which seeks to suppress the truth and undermine our trust in our ability to discern and know it.
Dr. Hart, I confess myself lost by your reply. Sorry to be dense.
I was arguing that the church claims jurisdiction over actions that are not strictly cultic. I cited stealing as an example of an action that has to do with the common (namely, property rights), about which the church has regulations.
You replied that yes, the church has regulations about stealing, but no, that doesn’t prove my point.
??? You seem to have agreed with my point while denying that I proved it.
—
Part of your response is that the church only has jurisdiction over the stealing of its members. But that’s a different issue: who is under the jurisdiction of the church, rather than which actions are regulated. The original claim was that the church regulates faith and worship only; this turns out to be false.
—
DGH: What is the organization of ministry? If it’s polity, there is not an overlap. Church government is not an preferential matter. Jure divino Presbyteriianism requires presbyterian polity.
Fine, but not on point. WCoF 1.9 means something when it says
Nevertheless, we acknowledge … that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
Whatever those “circumstances” may be, the point is that common-grace reasoning is permitted in them. The supposedly rigid wall of cult and culture is, once again, admitting exceptions.
—
I hope I haven’t inadvertently pushed you into feeling guilty about your Sabbath-keeping. There’s no end to it.
And in that third use of the law, the law is *not* deadly to us, but “of great useâ€, as the Confession says. Is the law/gospel distinction a useful one? Certainly. Is it the final word on the law? No…Likewise, I think “cult/culture†has the potential to become a paradigm that overwhelms the data. Can it be useful to distinguish cult and culture? Yes. I would say that in the last two years, thanks to you guys, I have become more sensitive to ways in which the church and state intrude on each other’s jurisdictions. But I’ve also seen the cult/culture distinction be used as if it were the final word, and it’s just not.
Jeff, my point about law being deadly is a second use point and, in good Reformed form, assumes a conventional third use. This is in no way whatsoever to dispense wholesale with the third use. So I’m not sure your critique really sticks. Similar critiques are made against Lutherans when they make strict law/gospel distinctions, but it’s fairly handily refuted that Lutherans have no third use understanding (see Fesko in the CPJ, 2007).
But, like Protestantism in general does with law/gospel, 2k specifically is arguing that cult/culture doesn’t overwhelm the data, rather it arises naturally from Scripture.
Jeff, the point would be that the church regulates her members whatever the state does. And stealing is one of those matters that the church regulates. If the state did not regulate it, the church still would. I don’t see how this undermines the cult/culture distinction. It’s perfectly consistent with it.
And your citation of WCF 1.6 also doesn’t have anything to do with the distinction. Every single person I know who holds the distinction also affirms that when to meet for church or GA is not governed by Scripture (Frame doesn’t hold this), but by the light of nature. What you are confusing, it seems is the source of revelation for the cult. The church draws from both general and special. The culture only from general.
It seems to me that Luther comes very close in asserting a third use of the law in his summary of the Ten Commandments in his Larger Catechism. I do not think Lutherans and the Calvinist traditions are as far off from each other as some would make you think.
John, ding ding ding ding.
John, as I read the Reformed critiques of Scottish Common Sense, it has a lot to do first with the difference between realism and idealism (hello, Kant and Hegel again). It also has to do with a diminished respect for natural law. Which is to say that Kuyper and Dooyeweerd offered critiques of NL or its philosophical basis that led contemporary worldviewers to regard the Enlightenment as wicked and Warfield as naive. I recommend VanDrunen’s book on NL and 2k to gain a perspective on this development.
Zrim: Jeff, my point about law being deadly is a second use point and, in good Reformed form, assumes a conventional third use. This is in no way whatsoever to dispense wholesale with the third use. So I’m not sure your critique really sticks.
The critique wasn’t that you don’t believe in the 3rd use, but that your slogan (“law is deadly to man”) is in conflict with what you actually believe.
Ah, you say, it’s a slogan. We should expect oversimplification from slogans. And I say, No, our slogans ought to say exactly what we mean. If you mean that the law in its first use is deadly to man, but in its third use is of great use to man, a light to his eyes and so on, then it’s a profound oversimplification to say “The law is deadly to man.”
It’s not fair, or wise, to use loose language and expect the rest of us to catch on. Which is not to say that I’m always sufficiently precise; just that, when I’m not, I usually have you two to point it out to me.
The same is true here in the “cult/culture distinction.” You have a rigid line; when exceptions are raised, you claim that the exceptions prove the rule.
To my mind, the exceptions prove that the rule is oversimplified.
DGH: We started by saying that the cult/culture distinction means that
The church has exclusive jurisdiction over faith and worship
The magistrate has exclusive jurisdiction over everything else.
I pointed out that the cult/culture distinction as defined is false. The church exerts jurisdiction over stealing (by its members) — and of course, over civil government in WCoF 23, over marriage, heck, over how much you eat (WLC 136).
Now I’m told that, yes, the church has jurisdiction over stealing (by it members), but that doesn’t prove my point.
What exactly qualifies as “proving a point” around here??!! Seems like I’ve met the usual logical requirements…
Or do you believe that stealing is a matter of “faith” or “worship”?
Baffled,
Jeff
Jeff, who ever said the magistrate has jurisdiction over everything else? I’ve never once countenanced that. Which magistrate — local, state, federal, republican, monarchical, democratic. What about sphere sovereignty? What about families? If you read posts here you will see efforts to juggle (the place where it should go on) these various authorities. And you’ll see acknowledgment that the spheres overlap in their concerns. Parents, church officers, and states all have an interest in the conduct of children. For you this proves that the line between cult and culture is invalid. But you have created a straw man.
Is it not fair to say that the church alone has jurisdiction over cultic activities? If the answer is yes, then you are a long way toward 2k. It is not rigid because believers live the rest of the week with competing sets of allegiances and duties. What sorts out some of that is conscience and Christian liberty.
This is hardly, the church has jurisdiction over worship, the magistrate has everything else. I NEVER started this.
As for a rigid line, is there one between day and night? What about 6:30 pm in early Oct.? Why do you look at this mechanically and not organically?
Well, hm. I was apparently mistaken in my read of this:
RL: The WCF doesn’t merely focus on actions. It articulates who rules over these two realms of activity. The church has jurisdiction over “faith and worship.†The civil magistrate has jurisdiction over “everything else.†Here’s the evidence….
DGH: And to add to RL’s point, the confession is also clear about the distinction when it comes to Sabbath observance…
I mistakenly understood you as countenancing RL’s point, which appeared to be as I stated.
So allow me to retrench: how precisely would you define the cult/culture distinction?
—
About the mechanical and organic: I actually like organic just fine. Keep in mind that I’m arguing *against* rigid walls between cult and culture.
As a followup to your question: I would say that there is an extended boundary between night and day. That boundary is sharper in the summer, blurrier in the winter, sharpest at the equator, blurriest at the poles.
So there’s clearly night — except in midsummer inside the polar circles — and clearly day — except in midwinter at same.
It is what it is, and arguing for a rigid boundary between the two is artificial. The best shot at that is “sunrise” and “sunset”, which are sharply defined (scientifically).
There’s a reason that we have words like “twilight” and “dawn.”
But notice also that rejecting a rigid boundary between night and day is not the same thing as denying the very existence of night and day. “Bald” has a clear meaning, even if the boundary between “bald” and “not bald” is fuzzy.
—
DGH: Is it not fair to say that the church alone has jurisdiction over cultic activities? If the answer is yes, then you are a long way toward 2k. It is not rigid because believers live the rest of the week with competing sets of allegiances and duties. What sorts out some of that is conscience and Christian liberty.
I can live with this. Yes and amen to the first. A lack of rigidity (sorry, Zrim) in the rest. And conscience and Christian liberty governing the whole.
To that extent, call me a 2k-er.
Notice that this comes very close to what I argued for above:
In the activities of believing and worshiping, our consciences are free from commands extraneous to the word.
In all other activities, our consciences are free from commands contrary to the word.
Note that this freedom cuts across both “kingdoms.â€
Here is an article about Dinesh D’Souza that some may be interested in:
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/what_dsouza_doesnt_get_quite_r.html
A Catholic huh? D’Souza himself has said his history is Catholic, but that he now holds to an evangelical theology that is reformational and protestant. He attends a Calvary Chapel and says he agrees with the theology outlined in CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity. Of course that’s not good enough for you Calvinists either. But is a far cry from Catholicism. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/augustweb-only/44-21.0.html
Kate K.,
For the record, D’Souza has written that he is “comforatable” with Protestant theology and “comfortable” with evangelicalism, not that he “holds” to it. He also has pointedly stated that he does not renounce his Roman Catholicism. The theology outlined in Mere Christianity could be affirmed by a Roman Catholic.
I hold respect for D’Souza as an apologist and a political analyst. But I think his theological position are ambiguous at best. I heard the audio of a recent debate in which he participated with with Christopher Hitchens and Dennis Prager, and notably, he declined to affirm sola fide or sola gratia. His equivocal answer appeared to affirm cooperation with grace as a means of justification. Very Catholic, not very Protestant. All the Protestants in the audience were a bit, well, unsatisifed with his answers.
One can sympathize with his position, a Catholic married to an evangelical. But I have not heard from him anything resembling an affirmation of belief in justification by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone. I hear mushy answers that sound more RC than Protestant.
I’ve gone ahead and bookmarked http://oldlife.org/2010/08/26/putting-the-tr-in-trueman/ at Digg.com and my site too – so my friends can see it too. I simply used Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » Putting the TR in Trueman as the entry title in my Digg.com bookmark, as I figured if it is good enough for you to title your blog post that, then you probably would like to see it bookmarked the same way.