The indefatigable slayer of 2k dragons, Nelson Kloosterman, has started a review series of David VanDrunen’s recent book on natural law and the two kingdoms. In his opening essay – will this one grow to twenty-one installments like his series on Klineanism and theonomy – he identifies the issue that makes VanDrunen’s position so alarming and worthy of extended critique:
. . . the disagreement—let this be clear from the outset—has never been about the existence of natural law or of two modes of divine rule in the world. In our current context, and in this ongoing discussion, that has never been the disagreement. The disagreement has involved, and continues to involve, the authority of Scripture, the authority of Jesus Christ, and the responsibility of Christians in the world. How is the Bible relevant to Christian living in today’s world? How is the lordship of Jesus Christ relevant to Christian living in today’s world? These have been, and remain, the questions that define the disagreement. Contemporary advocates of a certain construal of natural law and two kingdoms are unable to explain how either the Bible or the lordship of Jesus Christ are normative for Christians in their cultural life in today’s world. By contrast, contemporary advocates of Reformed worldview Christianity insist that the principles of God’s inscripturated revelation and of the lordship of King Jesus are normative for Christians in their cultural life in today’s world.
This is a helpful statement of what it is that troubles Kloosterman. But he has left out an important matter for Reformed Protestants, namely, what do our churches confess? Here the answer is not in Kloosterman’s favor since the Reformed Confessions say nothing about a Christian worldview as an article of the Christian faith. Nor has the notion of worldview been a consideration for determining churches of like faith and practice.
That puts Kloosterman in the awkward position of implicitly binding the conscience of VanDrunen and all those who don’t accept Dr. K’s version of Christian worldviewism. By making worldview the basis for his approval of other believers and their ideas, Kloosterman is establishing his own opinion and interpretation of the Bible as the criterion for unity in the faith. But let it be clear that he has no confessional basis for making a Christian worldview a requirement of authentic and faithful Christianity.
95 Comments
Mark, I’m really surprised that you think the Bible does not teach morality.
So you believe the Bible does speak to culture insofar as “culture” includes morals?
Mark, I believe the Bible teaches Christian morality. I believe that morals are part of a culture. I do not think that the Bible teaches morality for the sake of a Christian culture. There is no such thing as a Christian culture. There was a biblical culture in the OT. Israel was a state, a church, and a culture. Now Christians are Greek, Roman, French, Canadian, Brazilian, and even Dutch. Those places have their own cultures. Those cultures include believers and non-believers. Culture is a common enterprise. As such, the Bible does not address it.
Doesn’t the Bible teach morality that is universal for Christians and non-Christians alike?
Mark, this is where neo-Calvinism and theonomy breaks down. Christian morality can only come from a regenerate heart. You seem to think you can have a Christian culture with Christian morality. But how could non-Christians ever be part of such a culture if they need regeneration to participate in it? That’s why 2k and NL is so handy. It shows how non-Christians can be “good” in a civic sense and how Christians can participate in the common cultural life.
Darryl, if, per impossible, the Christian God did not exist, woudl there still be natural law?
DGH: You seem to think you can have a Christian culture with Christian morality. But how could non-Christians ever be part of such a culture if they need regeneration to participate in it?
I’ve never found this argument sensible. You don’t think that Christians keep the law all the time, do you? And this doesn’t prevent them from being a part of the church, right?
So how would the true fact that non-Christians don’t keep the law show that non-Christians shouldn’t be under the law? They don’t seem to keep natural law any more than any other law, so what kind of test are you proposing here?
Jeff:
I would say that unbelievers, like all humanity, are born under the covenant of works and have broken covenant. They have the law written on the conscience (Rom. 2:14-15), which Calvin and the Reformed orthodox identify with NL. Calvin and the Reformed orthodox wrote extenvisely about how much civil good unbelievers can accomplish under NL in the common realm, but they distinguished it sharply from the new obedience. The Christian’s new obedience is the fruit of faith and a regenerated heart. The unbeliever can produce a civic virtue, but not obedience that flows from the heart as a fruit of saving faith. How could an unbeliever keep the first table of the law? What would that look like?
Attepts to “Christianize” the common realm are, in the two kingdoms view, therefore futile.
Jeff,
The Heidelberg confesses that even Christians make only the smallest of beginnings in santification in this life, but it isn’t their partial obedience that places them in the church. It’s their faith in the One whose perfect obedience is imputed to them.
Jeff, first, I don’t think the idea is that believers keep the law perfectly but that they are by definition, contrary to unbelievers, specially but imperfectly empowered by the Spirit to do so.
Second, and this more to the point, the question is really one about participation and what are the grounds for it. When we conceive of the church, though they certainly exist, we are not compelled to carve out space for hypocrites and tares, indeed we are compelled to make things to be such that it might dispel the wolves from the fold (and nurture the sheep, of course). But when we conceive of the civil sphere we necessarily must make room for diversity. Citizenship in the church being voluntary is about intolerance, citizenship in the world being involuntary is about tolerance. This was essentially Machen’s apologetic for militancy.
So if you want to do the civil the way we do the ecclesiastical then you end up necessarily having a “one world order.†Not only that, but why wouldn’t it then also work in the reverse, which is to say a “generous orthodoxyâ€? Don’t those prospects for the respective spheres make the hairs on your neck stand up?
Mark,
While the Scripture’s authority is binding on all men and we are all liable to Divine judgment for breaking God’s Law, it seems that God hasn’t enforced his law in such a way where it is consistently upheld in human culture. This isn’t because God isn’t enforcing his law, rather his final accounting will be rendered in eschatalogical judgment. For now, God’s judgment is manifest in allowing man to continue sinning according to his God-denying sinful nature (Romans 1:18ff.).
Given the fact that God himself is suspending judgment for now, and leaving his Law unenforced except through the imperfect means of human governments; why then would Christians be charged with the task of upholding the Law (in whatever form) on God’s behalf? This question is even more difficult if you charge non-Xians with the task of keeping and upholding God’s Law in human society. So, while arguing that human culture and government should be seeking to use Scripture as a norm for their given societies sounds good on the surface (to some at least); it is presuming a responsibility that God has not laid upon believers or unbelievers alike. The fundamental responsibility of the unbeliever is to repent and believe upon Jesus; the commission of the church is clear as well and is expressed clearly in the Belgic Confession (Art. 29); the believer is to obey God in whatever stations of life he has been appointed (church, family, vocation etc.). The responsibility for re-making culture in accordance with God’s Law is a work that God will accomplish through building his church, in which Christians participate; and through making all things new in the world to come, in which we do not participate.
Where in the NT are we called to renovate culture? Like Dr. Hart has stated before, what value is there in subjecting the unregenerate to the morality that defines the regenerate? I haven’t heard a satisfactory answer on this yet, maybe that is because the Scriptures aren’t meant to be a legal/cultural handbook on morality.
Darryl, actually this is where R2k breaks down.
You have Biblical morality applying only to Christians. You do not see universal standards of morality that apply to all men, as revealed in Divine Writ. Then when you see Christians operating with unbelievers in building a “culture” {which you’ve previously defined as including morality/morals}, Biblical morality does not apply in that endeavor. In fact, you think that endeavor cannot reflect Christian morality, since the unbeliever is unregenerate So whatever that “morality” is, I don’t know; but this “civic goodness” is not measured against Scripture’s objective testimony on God’s moral standards.
This is not a 1st table vs. 2nd table argument. On a more fundamental level this is a “table vs. no table” argument.
Jeff, so they can’t keep any law. That’s not an argument for making the laws biblical, though of course the reason Kloosterman wants biblical law is because that the only way to interpret Natural Law. (Which, by the way, you have not really come clean on this yourself.)
Mark:
Dr. Hart can answer for himself, but you appear to be arguing against straw men. I’ve never read Dr. Hart (or Reformed theology more generally) to argue that there are no “universal standards of morality that apply to all men.” On the contrarty, Reformed theology and the Westminster standards identify the law with the covenant of works. Post fall, the terms of the covenant of works continue to obligate all human beings and must be perfectly fulfilled personally or by the Mediator. So what’s the problem?
CVD, read again what I have written. The “universal standards of morality that apply to all men” was followed by the words “as revealed in Divine Writ”. Hart denies that the universal morality as revealed in Divine Writ speaks to all men. Rather, this Biblical morality addresses Christians only– but not when they engage with unbelievers in “culture”. That’s a big problem.
Mark, like CVD says, I affirm the Covenant of Works and the demands of the law on all men (and women and children). But we are talking about culture and the Covenant of Works is not the basis for culture. I sure wish you could keep the topics straight. Are you this cagey with Judges?
The “demands of the law” on “all men”– writ large in Scripture– do involve cultural morality. It’s this basic Reformed Christianity that looks cagey to you, Darryl.
Mark, your saying this — demands of the law involve cultural morality — doesn’t make it so. What on earth is cultural morality? And why do the critics of 2k keep playing verbal games? Is that the only way to arrive at your integated mind and universe, use enough adjectives together with the object of your desire and there you have it — a Christian world and life view.
Don’t you see how laughable this kind of reasoning is? It may inspire the saints who want inspiration, but it’s not going to transform any culture.
Mark:
Dr. Hart can “carry his own water” as they say. But when he stated @ October 25, 2010 at 2:45 am
Mark, this is where neo-Calvinism and theonomy breaks down. Christian morality can only come from a regenerate heart. You seem to think you can have a Christian culture with Christian morality. But how could non-Christians ever be part of such a culture if they need regeneration to participate in it? That’s why 2k and NL is so handy. It shows how non-Christians can be “good†in a civic sense and how Christians can participate in the common cultural life.
The term used is “Christian morality” and it’s source is the regenerated heart, i.e., the Christian. The issue is the fundamental distinction, even antithesis, between the redeemed covenant keeper and the unredeemed covenant breaker. You can’t expect to successfully enforce in the civil realm the standards of the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of the beloved Son, on or against those who haven’t been transferred or translated into that kingdom.
But another reason why 2k and NL are handy, to extend DGH’s remark: it provides the context for evangelism: proclaiming the gospel so that God can convert the ungodly and gather his people to himself.
Mark,
I take it that what you are trying to do is to take issue with the assertion advanced by many 2K proponents, such as Dr. David Van Drunen, that God has not given covenantally the revelation of Scripture to the world at large but rather to the covenant community.
Dr. David Van Drunen, for example, argues that “in a certain sense, Scripture is not the appropriate moral standard for the civil kingdom.†Why? He argues: “Biblical morality is characterized by an indicative-imperative structure. That is, all of its imperatives (moral commands) are preceeded by and grounded in indicatives (statements of fact), either explicitly or implicitly.” He further reasons that the “indicatives†in Scripture -—the things which tell us who we are—-are not true of the world at large. And if the “indicatives†do not apply to the unbelievers, the “imperatives†“cannot be taken from Scripture and placed upon them.” “The most important indicative that grounds the imperatives in Scripture is that the recipients of Scripture are the covenant people, that is, members of the community of the covenant of grace…..” Since membership in the civil kingdom is not limited to believers, the imperatives of Scripture do not bind members of that kingdom. These imperatives are not “directly applicable to non-Christians.â€
From this premise, Dr. Van Drunen argues: “Generally speaking, at least, argument and discussions with our unbelieving neighbors ought to occur in terms of the natural moral law, not in terms of Scripture—although, of course, Scripture gives us as believers important information and instructions about our lives in various realms.”
Since you apparently hail from the neo-Cal perspective, this would be anathama to your thinking. But with that said, it is nevertheless not fair to say that 2K advocates contend that there are “no universal standards of morality” that bind non-believers. Because Dr. Van Drunen and Dr. Hart embrace the covenant of works as binding on all men and women both in and outside of the covenant community, believer and unbeliever, they agree that God’s universal moral standards bind the whole world, and they are accessible through natural law to the whole world, which of course was Paul’s argument in Romans 1 and 2.
CVD,
I’ve been waiting for someone to make that point explicitly. That’s really great, thanks. Perhaps I could supplement it a little bit, and recommend VanDrunen’s newer book on the Two Kingdoms (out this week or next).
An important covenantal supplement to the COW in the Two Kingdoms discussion is the common grace covenant with Noah in Genesis 9. You made reference to what Paul does in Romans 1 and 2 – DVD works a lot with the relationship between what Paul does there and the Noahic covenant. There is where we 2Kers go for the legitimacy of the common kingdom as instituted and sustained by God. There is no redemption or special revelation that properly belongs to that kingdom but it nevertheless produces men with whom Abraham can later covenant with and that Paul observes as “doing the (natural) law.”
CVD, I’ll remind you -again– that I contend that Hart denies that there are universal moral standards writ in Scripture that bind all men. You don’t refute that, but confirm the assertion with citations from Van Drunen.
Neither have VD’s or Hart’s position proven consistent with what the Reformed confess about the scriptural testimony found in Romans. They misread it as an argument that natural law is alone sufficient for men judging moral standards in the civil realm. Even as R2k proponents acknowledge that “natural law” is essentially equivalent to the Decalogue, they argue that one must be regenerate to read the Bible– so therefore those inscripturated moral standards can only apply to Christians. This is of a piece with VD’s inaugural lecture where he argues for a distinct “dual ethic”, one that applies to believers and one that applies to unbelievers.
R2kt should be anathema to any thinking that hails from basic Reformed confessionalism.
Mark:
You haven’t proven that the Reformed confessions are the monopoly of neo-Cals. VanDrunen argues persuasively that 2K thought was historically found in Reformed thought from the Reformation to the preesent, and that natural law theory was central to traditional Reformed or Calvinist thought.
Natural law is sufficient to condemn the unbeliever. Adding inscripturted law does not help the unbeliever, who can neither spiritually discern it, nor obey it, nor please God by it. Gospel can help him.
Thank you for mentioning DVD’s inaugural lecture. It is a masterpiece and well worth listening to again. For those who haven’t heard it, here is a key graph:
“We are dual citizens in a sense, but our two citizenships are incommensurate. We belong to the spiritual kingdom as we can never again belong to the civil kingdom, and hence we belong to the church as we can never again belong to any state, society, or culture. Christians are called to live lives shaped and determined by the heavenly kingdom, which means the life of the justified, life beyond the judgment, in which we are no longer judged and no longer judge.
“Yet as we are called to participate in the civil kingdom we are compelled to judge and be judged by the people of this world. We must submit to the judgments of the market, the critic, the referee, the court of law, and we contribute to these same judgments upon others as consumers, voters, and the like.
“But in the church we find a community filled with those who, like us, know the freedom that comes in justification, the freedom neither to judge nor be judged, the freedom to be merciful and forgiving as Christ himself is. The church is a haven and shelter in the midst of the often cruel judgments of the world, a place where we may love and be loved no matter what quality our labor, how beautiful our music, how long our criminal record… The church is indeed our mother, who with open arms constantly welcomes us home.”
You haven’t proven that the Reformed confessions are the monopoly of neo-Cals.
I’ve never set out to prove that.
VanDrunen argues persuasively that 2K thought was historically found in Reformed thought from the Reformation to the preesent, and that natural law theory was central to traditional Reformed or Calvinist thought.
As Kloosterman stated, the question is not whether “two kingdoms” or “natural law” were found in Reformed thought. The question is whether VD’s version of 2k and NL lines up with Reformed thought on those topics. Perhaps you can keep an open mind as Kloosterman’s review continues.
Thank you for mentioning DVD’s inaugural lecture. It is a masterpiece..
It is a masterpiece in the same way the Picasso in Chicago is a masterpiece of deconstruction art, where we visitors frequently ask: “Is that a woman? is it a horse? is it an alien??”
Mark,
Thank you for the art criticism. Granted Picasso was only Spanish, but Kloosterman is no Dutch Master. I’m still waiting for the proof that his Reformed worldviewism is an article of the Reformed faith mandated by the Reformed confessions.
MarkVDm, do you ever respond without looking first whether a point agrees with Dr. K. or not? CVD makes a very telling point from DVD (keeping these VD’s straight is a challenge) about the indicative imperative structure of the law as revealed in Scripture. And all you can say is that Dr. K. disagrees with DVD? Surely you don’t argue that way in a court of law?
I’m still waiting for the proof ..
I {and others} have for 2+ years been laying out confessional arguments. I am nearly convinced that no amount of proof by confessional citations will convince R2k adherents of their error. Just as the Reformed world witnessed the FV-ers grow bolder in brushing off confessional critiques, we are seeing the mirror image performance by the R2k crowd. Resolution of FV debates came not by blog discussion, but by ecclesiastical judgment. By God’s grace the churches are now waking up R2k. It appears the same resolution will be necessary on this score.
Rev. Thomas Vanden Heuvel is the former editor of the Outlook and is a man who knows of what he speaks. He penned the following in a letter to Christian Renewal:
“We agree with Dr. Kloosterman’s assessment of what will happen in the Reformed community, as we know it, if these natural law, two-kingdom views espoused by Dr. Van Drunen and others, take root….We urge every reader of this magazine to exert the mental energy that will be required to follow the lines of argumentation that Dr. Kloosterman will present in upcoming articles. It is necessary for the peace of the church and survival of the Reformed faith with its Calvinistic world and life view. Please do not underestimate the importance of the struggle we are facing.”
May God give us all ears to hear.
Mark, somehow I have missed your blog.
If you mean that you keep insisting on Article 36 and the sliver of the Canons of Dort that Dr. K. keeps mangling, those have hardly qualified as arguments.
Really, the best you can muster is scare tactics like your quote from Tom. Somehow you and Dr. K along with Tom completely ignore what anti-2k, integrated worldview thinking did to the CRC. Again, your worldview is irrational because it ignores reality.
Mark,
It is offensive and a measure of your obduracy that you would compare the FV to the doctrine of 2K. The FV threatens the gospel, “a matter of first importance” (1 Cor. 15). The biblical doctrine of 2K, even if you’re right that it’s shot through with error, imperils only a declining cultural consensus that once prevailed among a few Dutch churchmen. Is losing Top Dog status so threatening that you have to resort to scare tactics and threats rather than reasoned arguments?
CVD, it is measure of how tightly closed your ears are that you think my post above compared FV doctrine to R2k doctrine. Certainly the doctrine is not the same. In fact, I see FV and R2kt as committing *opposite* end errors re: the law & the covenant of grace.
Rather, if you read more carefully, you should see I was referring to the arrogant distraction tactics in response to confessional critique that is nearly identical. You unintentionally supplied a good example with the “fear of losing Top Dog status” imputation-of-motive remark.
So your insistence on having a reasoned argument when you refuse to use reasoned argument is, well, unreasonable.
Mark,
If 2k poses such a virulent threat to Reformed Orthodoxy, why hasn’t there been actions taken in the ecclesiastical courts? It might actually do some good if some of you that are so hopping mad over 2k would take it to the courts. If this were to happen, I am sure that 2k advocates would be able to make a reasonable defense of their position. It is not as if 2k isn’t w/o biblical warrant. All I see is a spitting contest as of yet, and nothing substantive in terms of ecclesiasical decisions against 2k. The fact that WCF was revised in accordance with the separation of church and state gives strength and precedent to the 2k, SOTC position. It would seem that you would have to fight a battle on two fronts – first for confessional revision, second against the Scriptural tenability of 2k theology.
The problem as I see it is that any efforts to expunge 2k from Reformed denominations is that anti-2k concerns are not churchly or doctrinal, rather cultural and philosophical. 2k, SOTC congregations do take the confessions very seriously in how they conduct the ministry of Word and Sacrament. It is incumbent on you to demonstrate how this falls short in executing the marks of the church unfaithfully, or how we are out of step with our Confessional standards.
So instead of the saber rattling, make good on your threats, our denominations would be healthier if you would.
Mark, where is the confessional critique? Dr. K. is not the confession.
Darryl,
when I pointed out (for the nth time) that neocalvinism is not biblicism,
you wrote:
“you may want to check if your papers within the world view movement are still in order.”
I think that Dooyeweerd and (the granddaddy of postWWII neocalvinism in NorthAmerica) Evan Runner trump Kloosterman.
Anyway, there is no “worldview movement”.
You like to lump neocalvinists in with everyone else with whom you disagree, I understand. But I’m sorry. The best neocalvinists are also confessionalists (Dooyeweerd and Runner both were), and we’re as much at odds with theonomy, biblicism, FV, evangelicalism, social gospel, et.al. as you are.
Baus, I’ll grant you that folks like Dooyeweerd don’t cite their Bibles too much. Their knack is philosophy. And my objection here is that I don’t regard philosophy as the queen of intellectual endeavor.
But here is your problem — to call something a Christian world view implies that Christ is at work somewhere in this outlook. And the only way we know Christ is through the Bible (and the spirit). So at least Dr. K. is a consistent Christian worldview guy by running (or at least standing, yelling, and pointing) to Scripture to interpret gen rev. But the neo-cals whom you regard as the bomb are in an awkward position of doing something Christian without Scripture (or so it would seem).
In both cases, though, the neo-cals, as DVD shows, balk and then fumble (sorry to mix sports metaphors) natural law. And the reason appears to be the bogey of dualism.
The problem you propose is not a problem for neocalvinists, since we don’t buy into your definitions. If you want to engage neocalvinism, you’ll have to understand it first.
Baus, could you at least acknowledge that you are not the holder of the true, the proud, and the faithful neo-Calvinism. This is all I seem to get from you. Neo-Calvinism isn’t what I say. I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Okay, is there a neo-Calvinist club with dues and regular inspection of those who write using its name? I doubt there is.
So are you saying that Kloosterman is not a neo-Calvinist? I’d love to see his reaction when you presented him with that news.
Darryl, are you ready to “at least” acknowledge that you are not a holder of faithful presbyterianism or of true reformed confessionalism?
You know, there are PCUSA and Church of Scotland presbyterians. There are EPC presbyterians. There are RCA and CRC folk who say they are Confessional.
(btw, the CRC is less Kuyperian than it is Confessionally Reformed).
So, should we excuse everyone who refuses to look deep enough to see the difference and the reasons for those differences?
I’m catching up on Kloosterman’s views; still reading. My main point is that biblicism is not neocalvinist and viceversa. To accept the one is to depart from the other. I’ll give you my verdict on his views eventually.
My secondary point is that not all views that espouse some kind of “Christian” approach or view of the non-ecclesial are the same. Neocalvinists aren’t soft-theocrats any more than (neo)Two-kingdom’ists are soft-atheists.
If I sound like a broken record, so be it. Here I stand.
Baus, you’re kidding. Presbyterians outside the OPC? Unfrigginbelievable.
I would hold a mirror up to your views and ask Baus to heal himself. Whenever I critique someone here who claims to be a neo-Calvinist I can count on Baus to pop up and tell me that I am not critiquing the real deal of neo-Calvinism. I guess I need to run all my neo-Cal posts by you.
But it could be that your own ideas about neo-Calvinism are a tad sheltered.
I get it though, I am not the only one who understands confessional Reformed Protestantism. But at least I have a body of teachings (the confessions) and a group of communions upon which to base some of my own personal convictions. What exists as the standard for neo-Cal’s other than a lot of worldview, smoke, mirrors, and inspiration.
Do you guys ever huddle and agree on the same play?
*sigh*.
I’m sorry, you missed my point again. Let me be clearer.
My point is not that you aren’t the only one who understands confessional Reformed Protestantism. My point is that if someone criticizes the PCUSA, or rejects their view about x, y, or z… does that categorically involve an objection to Presbyterianism? If one argues that the RCA is wrong about this or that, has Reformed Confessionalism been refuted?
The answer is no.
Now, you may ask “why not”?
The answer is that you and I hold to Presbyterianism, to the Confessional Reformed Faith, and we have good reason to say that those who disagree with us in the PCUSA and RCA do not hold to such a system. (Or do you actually think the PCUSA are good Presbyterians?!)
The funny thing is, you have challenged me in the past to speak up when neocalvinists err. So, here I am saying that Kloosterman’s way of putting his objection to 2k (as expressed in his first review essay) is not good neocalvinism in so far as it is biblicist. I’m saying Kloosterman has it wrong. You are objecting to Kloosterman’s biblicism, and I’m saying you have neocalvinism on your side on that point.
You ask what exists as a standard for neocalvinism.
Well, if you think the past 100 years of life and work are smoke, I’m suggesting you should try inhaling a little.
Baus, if the past 100 years are not smoke, then what is Kloosterman smoking? I am not trying to get you to turn on him. But here is a thinker who fully thinks he is within the pale and carrying the neo-Cal banner high. Now you say he doesn’t get it (or at least parts of it). So to whom are the unenligthened to turn for the genuine article?
In other words, the neo-Cal project is not nearly as coherent as your running jabs here at OLTS allege. That’s fine for them not to be coherent. But for you to say I don’t get neo-Cal’s, when you yourself don’t seem to understand the variety (and perhaps deformity) borders on folly.
I think Kloosterman, like many, is likely imbibing in Evangelicalism or whatever other sources of biblicism are alien to both Confessionalism and neocalvinism (as they have historically gone hand-in-hand).
I certainly grant that the neocal project is varied. But “not coherent’… well, unless you think “liberal presbyterians” somehow make the confessional reformed faith “not coherent,” my analogy stands.
I think neocals who are clear about rejecting biblicism (which is the *majority* of them, and includes Dooyeweerd, Runner, and Clouser) are the “genuine article”. This also accounts for the predominant criticism of neocalvinism in Anglophone circles, viz. that neocals aren’t biblicist (biblicism being considered a virtue by most/all non-confessionalists).
Baus, great, you guys, the real ones, aren’t biblicists. So how exactly do you do something Christian without the Bible? Where do you get the truths to do Christian philosophy apart from Scripture?
So you filled in one hole only to dig another for yourself.
I really hope you are wanting to know the answer to your questions. If so, this would mean that you are ready to learn about neocalvinism.
Mind you, what you take as “Christian” (ie, exclusively the ecclesial-theological) is rejected by neocalvinism. So, if you’re looking for how something might be considered ecclesial-theological apart from Scripture, you will remain frustrated and uninformed.
The question is whether (and if so, in what way) could something be considered Christian in a non-theologico-ecclesial way. If you are intent on dismissing this categorically and out-of-hand (as you have to this point), you will never be ready to learn what neocalvinism is about.
In any case, you will find a treatment of this question in… (wait for it…)
Chapters 5 & 6 of Roy Clouser’s The Myth Of Religious Neutrality (2005).
I’d love to see you offer a critique of those chapters (p.89 – 128).
Baus, I completed my homework assignment and I still have a question for the teacher. Why do you call something Christian that doesn’t even mention Christ or redemption? And why call it biblical (why radical is another question) when the Bible is so little in view? I know, these are the questions of desultory fundamentalists, I guess. But what Clouser does is much better called theistic rather than Christian. And please do keep in mind that if you can call this form of reasoning and argument Christian, you can pour a whole lot more into the term as well. Consider the CRC.
But I still don’t understand why the notion of presuppositions or basic beliefs informing everything we do is particularly Christian or particularly helpful. On the one hand, I’m not sure the Bible requires believers to be so self-conscious about epistemology. And on the helpful side of things, most of life is lived at the intuitive level of perception — a sense of what is right or fitting or appropriate — rather than some philosophical algorithm that allows me to go deep and find the inner recesses of my belief and how it informs everything I do — or not. If people actually lived this way, they’d still be in bed deciding whether they have sufficient philosophical warrant to get up.
Mind you, I value the work of philosophers in the classroom and study. But making this stuff an everyday Christian practice is just silly. Punt on Clouser and read Cicero.
These are legit questions, and when I finish my essay (chapter) on the issue for publication (in a forthcoming book) I’ll ask for your feedback.
Briefly, “why the notion of presuppositions informing everything we do is… particularly helpful“?
Well, if the presupps are Christian, then they can inform what we do in such a way as to render what we do distinctively Christian in some way. Of course one may have non-Christian theistic presupps. And, in any case, one can have presupps (and so action) that is ultimately at odds with ones genuine Christian faith. There’s the rub.
“most of life is live at the intuitive level…”
No doubt. But that does not mean that anyone can escape having religiously-directed presupps that actually do inform what they do. I don’t see what’s “silly” about having a level of self-consciousness about what is ones view of reality and how it is directing ones action. It seems rather manifestly important and serious if it is possible that ones presupps and action are at odds with ones Christian faith.
To punt on Clouser and to read Cicero without Christian presuppositional reflection as recommended by Clouser is tantamount to opening oneself to adopt presupps and action that may be at odds with ones Christian faith without questioning. If there is no need to be self-conscious about ones presupps, why bother reading Cicero or anything? Just go with the flow, secure in your presupposition (oops!) that you’re in no danger of ever presupposing or doing anything at odds with your faith.
How innocent and simple such a life must be.
One Trackback
[...] of Dr. K’s fans posted here part of a letter by a Reformed pastor who is also in agreement with the good doctor on the threat [...]