N. T. Wright’s recent appearance at the Evangelical Theological Society has most evangelical biblical and theological professors swooning the way that teenaged females greeted the Beatles almost fifty years ago. What is it with the American obsession with English accents (or Scottish for that matter)? In response to a post by Doug Wilson on yet further discussion of Wright’s views in which Wilson criticizes Scott Clark, Stellman spots the subtext of Wilson’s beef with Clark:
But when you stop and think about it, it becomes immediately clear that the errors for which Clark faults Wright are the very same errors for which he faults Wilson. Wilson’s mocking dismissal of Clark’s disagreements with the New Perspective, therefore, can seemingly be explained by the fact that they also apply to the Federal Vision.
It would appear, then, that the reason Wilson wants people like Clark banned from the New Perspective discussion is not really because of the overly-scrupulous nature of his attacks, but because those attacks aren’t narrow enough to just zero in on Durham, but they also set their sights upon Moscow, Idaho. In a word, Wilson’s problem isn’t that Clark is too nitpicky, it’s that he’s not nitpicky enough, for if he would agree to pinpoint only those errors of Wright’s that Wilson agrees are erroneous, then all would be well and Clark would welcomed back into the discussion. But since his attacks on Wright are broader than what Wilson is comfortable with, he is branded a mere irritant and dismissed with a wave of the hand.
Not only a ding ding ding ding moment, but Stellman’s outlook is further proof that 2k is far more reliable than its hysterical opponents suppose. In fact, we are still waiting for the anti-2k folks to step up to the plate on justification.
75 Comments
No one has made philosophers matrons of honors, Zrim. You’ve had to spin things that way to stay in the conversation. In any case, yes, you do mind philosphers helping. You have never read one. Never taken the advice of one. Never had one nice or respectful thing to say of one. And you have also demeaned them, as well as the tools they specialize in and have mastered.
Plus, if common fishermen can be apostles and do good theology and know the history of the church, then the church is fundamentally different from the academy; so R.S. Clark and D.G. Hart &Co. shouldn’t have got a PhD??? What the heck was your point?
For Zrim:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Philosophy-Paul-K-Moser/dp/0521694868/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3#_
And see this one:
http://www.equip.org/articles/jesus-philosopher-and-apologist
Paul, the point was a pro-ecclesiastical one, not an anti-intellectual one. Or do you think elders need PhD’s to do their churchly work? Elders who also are academics do for their academic work, but not elders for their churchly work.
But I have a liberal arts education, so I have read philosophy. Aristotle was cool, but he’s no Paul. Is that mean? I’ve also read lots of fictional literature. I happen to prefer it over philosophy (and science, psychology, sociology, history, political science, etc.) to get a window into humanity, but I don’t think fiction writers by virtue of being such should have a seat at Synod or GA or otherwise “bring their work of fiction writing into the theological fold.â€
Mark, I don’t know who wrote that, and I think some 2K scholars use more even-toned rhetoric, but it’s within the mainstream. Not all, but most would affirm that as citizens of Christ’s kingdom, Christians live under the authority of Christ as revealed in Scripture (special revelation); in the civil kingdom, humanity lives under the authority of the laws of the land, general revelation and natural law.
Zrim: “Craig, I wouldn’t preclude philosophers from helping either, but it’s when handmaidens make themselves Matrons of Honor that I wonder. Plus, if common fishermen can be apostles who refute sophisticated philosophers then the church is fundamentally different from the academy.”
That’s a fantastic point. I haven’t seen anyone in this discussion say otherwise.
For fishermen to counfound philosophers, or debaters of the age, they require the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is much more powerful and in no way relies on the weak means of semantics, and misrepresentation.
Preaching is not a philosophical discourse, and neither is the construction of a Confession. When one enters into a dialogue, however, certain rules do apply. To conflate standards for discourse with the standards of the preached Word and/or construction of Confessions would co-mingle the kingdoms. After all, your discourse with Paul is not a Confessional standard, nor is it a means of grace.
CVD, I have not put a gag order on Christians engaging in various forms of public service or engagement. I really would appreciate your not falsifying what I have said repeatedly in distinguishing between the church institutionally and individual Christians. I would also appreciate it if you acknowledged that your views are extreme in ruling me outside what Machen said. If you continue to misrepresent me I will assume the prerogatives I have as moderator of the blog.
Zrim, being forced to speed read Aristotle in college doesn’t count.
CVD, let me help Mark out. Given his animus against Dave VanDrunen, you might expect the quote to be from DVD. Turns out its from the object Kloosterman’s animus, Scott Clark. And here is the full context for MDVM’s snippet.
Mark, why do you play games? Why not just come out and explain to us the true way, without any quotes?
DGH, I resent your accusation and am through with you. I’ve tolerated your offensive and disingenuous rhetoric long enough. Your sophomoric ways are beyond the pale. You are arrogant and rude and your willingness to mischaracterize, throw out gratuitous insults, is unprofessional and most unbecoming of someone who apsires to serve the church. I have no intention of visiting your site again.
Zrim, I’ve already explained how you’re anti-intellectual, where am I off in that analysis? To deny a *paradigm* of rationality (validity and soundness) is anti-intellectual.
Oh, and I appreciate your primary *philosophical* explanation of liking literature.
Zrim, since you admit that philosophy is basically useless to you, and that you have never read any philosophy (apart from being forced to read Aristotle while, no doubt, not understanding his system of thought). So, (a) how is it that you can say that you think philosophy is “helpful,” and (b) attack it and critique it and disaprare it since you, per your own words, have no clue whatsoever of the merits of philosophy???
Paul, it’s funny how you do with a tamping down of logic and philosophy what CVD does with a tamping down of politics and legislation. I get you guys lovelovelurv your disciplines, but when you both demand we all have the same affection for them I want to tell you guys to get a room already. Public displays of affection are unbecoming.
Look, the simple point being made here is that there has to be a shaded area between apathy and full-throat. Nobody is telling you that philosophy is useless when it is said that it’s not the height of Christian understanding, just like nobody is telling CVD politics is futile when it is said that it’s not the pinnacle of Christian action.
But what do I know, I’m just an irrational anti-intellectual. Boo.
Darryl, as you wish. I’ll summarize the confessional position for you: God’s will as revealed in Scripture is normative on all men everywhere. That would include activity and vocations outside the visible church, eg. the magistrate, the trades, the academy, and yes, even Westminster West.
Now I wish you hadn’t driven C Van Dyke away. I was hoping to engage him a bit further using your #1 fan’s quote to show that you are in fact NOT an outlier among the current crop of “2k”-ers. How about apologizing to him and inviting him back so I can defend you as in line with the rest of your “2K” friends.
CVD, your call. But you have made patently wrong assertions about my views, even after I made contrary assertions and clarified. It strikes me that that is conduct unbecoming persons. Courts of law could not exist with such behavior.
Mark, thanks for the clarification. Then please answer the question that lurks behind your assertions about the magistrate. The Bible condemns idolatry and blasphemy and says it should be punished. In the OT it is punished with death. The NT is silent about such punishment. The Belgic was not silent and said the magistrate should also punish blasphemy and heresy. Blasphemers and heretics were either expelled or executed. That is the biblical view according to your reading of the Bible’s claims on magistrates.
But now you do not think the magistrate should enforce what the Bible says about blasphemers and idolaters.
So you don’t actually hold to the standard you use against 2k. Plus, you are outside the mainstream of 16th and 17th century Reformed thought that you constantly use against 2k.
Where do you get the get out of jail free card that allows you to disregard the biblical and confessional standards that you uphold?
Darryl, your question is answered by the revision to Belgic 36. While retaining the Word’s limits on the magistrate’s rule {e.g. Daniel obeying God rather than man}, it removed the coercive suppression of heresy and idolatry. That was viewed as a misapplication of the general principle of the Word being normative. Of course, a misapplication does not nullify the general principle. Recall too the article continues to say that the magistrate is to “protect the sacred ministry so the kingdom of God may be thus promoted”, clearly showing the magistrate has a positive interest in seeing First Table matters advance while yet not crossing over into attempting to coerce faith.
The question is *how* the Word is to be applied in the civil realm, not *whether* it applies at all.
Mark, thanks for the clarification. That means that you are closer to me than to Calvin, and that you too view the sixteenth century Reformed creeds on the magistrate as unbiblical. Welcome to the 2k club.
Then again, I’m not bound by Belgic. I subscribe Westminster revised, which says that magistrate has a duty to protect all persons no matter what their belief or lack of it.
Don’t you think it is really wonderfully ecumenical that the Reformed churches even prior to revising Art. 36 never felt compelled to judge the American Presbyterians outside the bounds of fellowship the way that you judge David VanDrunen (who also subscribes the American revision)?
DGH: I subscribe Westminster revised, which says that magistrate has a duty to protect all persons no matter what their belief or lack of it.
WLC: Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate…
It strikes me as somewhat stronger than “a duty to protect all persons no matter what their belief or lack of it.”
What does it mean, in your view, for the “magistrate to countenance and maintain” the church, in light of the historical context in which this was written?
Darryl, where you and I together diverge from Calvin is on the coercive suppression of heresy. But all the Reformed have agreed to that change in our *application* of a broader first principle: the normative role of the Word of God in the civil realm.
But a significant divide remains on that apriori principle: On the one side is R2k’s denial of special revelation being normative in the civil realm. On the other side is Calvin, the Puritans, the Neo-Cals, and the *revised* Reformed confessions affirmation of the principle.
Got it, Mark. So you are allowed to depart from Scripture on the penalty for idolatry but I am not allowed to depart from Scripture in arguing for the freedom of idolaters to practice their faith.
You know, Mark, you really are in a pickle here. Whether or not the magistrate executes idolaters, the Bible is clear about the wickedness of idolatry. You seem to think that by no longer executing heretics, we have somehow solved the problem of the old Reformed views of the magistrate. But even if Geneva had not executed Servetus, Geneva would not have allowed Baptists to live there. That means that unless you think the magistrate should restrict false practices, both non-Christian and those claiming to be Christian, you do uphold the Bible as a norm for civil life. If the Bible were a norm, would our neighbors be free to practice Mormonism and Roman Catholicism?
Just to connect the dots for you, by working with Roman Catholics in Dutch politics, Abraham Kuyper was not using the Bible as a standard for civic life. Where do believers ever cooperate with idolaters in Scripture?
Darryl, so you think the revised Belgic is a departure from Scripture and puts us TFU folks in a pickle. That’s fine you admit your problem with this. That’s been my point for some time now.
Darryl,
Are you saying that Roman Catholic error rises to the level of anathema? Is it their doctrine of justification that is the clincher? Or is it because they articulated the Gospel at Trent and called it anathema? Sorry if this is a bit of point.
Has any protestant ecclesiastical body made such a determination?
Got it, Mark. You either think that Scripture requires the prohibition of blasphemy and idolatry but allows the magistrate freedom not to enforce it, or you think that the Bible does not require the prohibition of blasphemy and idolatry and Calvin and Knox were wrong to read the Bible as if it did. That sounds like a dill pickle to me.