After saying my morning prayers (see, I am devout), tending to the livestock, and fixing the coffee, I tuned into my favorite radio show (my wife’s most hated) to learn not only that Phillies had lost but that Osama Bin Laden had lost his life. To hear sports-talk radio hosts commenting on life, death, and terrorism was obviously strange, though they would have also been my path to news of 9-11 if streaming audio were available back in the dark days of Windows XP.
But even stranger and more inappropriate was to listen to sports fans chime in with glee about Mr. Laden’s death. To treat this man’s execution and burial like another Joe Blanton loss is clearly not fitting. What the event seems to call for is a ceremony – akin to the one in which President participated at the National Cathedral after 9/11. My Old Life sensibility tempts me to conclude that our culture cannot ceremonialize the death of a national enemy because we are no longer a ceremonial culture – too much Praise & Worship worship. But this would be a cheap shot in the worship wars. What is actually the case is that human beings have a long history of celebrating an enemy’s death in a manner more appropriate to a sporting even. Just think of what the Italians did to Mussolini. The communist Partisans captured him, executed him, and then hung him by his feet in a public square in Milano where the locals proceeded to jeer and throw rocks. Don’t underestimate human vindictiveness.
But don’t underestimate either the dark side of this bright moment in this chapter in the chronicles of justice. Since I have been re-watching Season Three of The Wire – the season where the fate of the drug lords, Stringer Bell and Avon Barksdale is settled – I have thought about the events of last night through the lens of human frailty so brilliantly depicted in that award-winning HBO series.
First, I heard on NPR that one of the oddities about Mr. Laden’s compound was that such a massive and expensive place would not have either internet or phone service. Boy, does that have The Wire written all over it. To evade the special unit given the task of catching Avon, which had used a fairly sophisticated system of wire taps, even to be able to track disposable phones, the head of the entire drug enterprise went without a phone altogether. To contact him, people had to talk to his minions, or executive minions. Mr. Laden didn’t need to be a fan of The Wire to see the logic of going without electronic communication, but sometimes life does imitate art.
Second, if Mr. Laden were an American citizen selling drugs or directing terror, chances are the authorities would not have had the freedom to kill him on sight. Their first action would have been to capture him, read him his rights, and then start the wheels of U.S. jurisprudence rolling – which might involve some roughing up behind closed doors in police office buildings. But if Mr. Laden were like Avon, he would likely still be alive (if he did not resist arrest).
Third, what kind of strategy did the American military use in killing Mr. Laden? In The Wire the mayor and police chief are often more interested in symbolic victories – declines in statistics, or drugs piled on tables for journalists to see and photograph – than the real source of the problem. In other words, they are more interested in winning re-election than in strategic allocation of resources. In which case, was Mr. Laden a target of military and intelligence officials? Or was he a trophy for administrators in the Pentagon to maintain budgets and for the White House to look tough on terror?
Another layer in managing the publicity of Mr. Laden’s death is the relationship among the United States, its Western and middle-Eastern allies, and Pakistan. Military and civilian authorities are choosing their words carefully to prevent embarrassment for the Pakistanis. What The Wire’s police chief Burrell says to his Colonels is different from what he says to the mayor behind closed doors which is different from what Burrell says to the press. Another instance of personal, professional, and civic calculations is Tommy Carcetti’s decision to run for mayor of Baltimore. As one of the few white councilmen in the city, the only shot he has to defeat the black incumbent is if another black councilman runs in the Democratic primary and splits the African-American vote, thereby letting Tommy emerge as the great white hope – who even during the mayoral campaign is calculating how to manage city politics in a way that will allow him to run for state (governor) and or federal (senator) office. Celebrators should not let Mr. Laden’s death prevent them from seeing the layers of interests – what the Coen brothers do when exploring the mixed motives of their characters – that inform presidents, generals, chiefs of staff, kings, ministers of parliament and journalists in their massaging of, taking credit for, or distancing from this event.
Last, celebrators should remember the experience of Bushy Top, Jimmy McNulty, once he finally hit his target. Jimmy had to do some real soul searching about whether he was going after Avon and Stringer for the sake of the city, his commander, or personal fulfillment – colleagues did tell him he needed to get a life. To the degree that his own identity was bound up with convicting one of B&B Enterprises’ co-owners, Jimmy also saw how incomplete he was. The defeat of Avon and Stringer turned out to be a thin reed on which to hang Jimmy’s search for meaning. The death of Mr. Laden will generate great ebullience. Americans should beware of the rapid and scary descent on the other side of this roller coaster ride.
What in anyway does any of this have to do with Reformed faith and practice? In keeping with the neo-Puritan insistence on application, the theological payoff of a Wired reading of Mr. Laden’s death is this: although the Bible teaches human depravity God’s word doesn’t really explore it in its amazing and complicated depth – as in the wickedness that clings to the best of human actions – the way that productions like The Wire do, or the Coen Brothers’ movies, or even the occasional French film like Jean de Florette. To be alert to the variety and tenacity of human sinfulness, you need to look at the poignant portrayals of human existence that come from some of the best artistic expressions (though the Old Testament has its moments).
What the Bible does teach is the remedy for sin. Its salvation is not a government that enforces God’s law or even that reinforces the rule of law, as good as those forms of rule may be. The only remedy is a savior whose work of redemption is so amazing that he could even, pending faith and repentance, save Mr. Laden from his obvious sin.
239 Comments
This is quite a thought-provoking response, Dr. Hart.
As with Baltimore’s finest, I suppose it’s on to the next case in the war on terror.
It’s a good post.
DGH: [A]lthough the Bible teaches human depravity God’s word doesn’t really explore it in its amazing and complicated depth – as in the wickedness that clings to the best of human actions – the way that productions like The Wire do, or the Coen Brothers’ movies, or even the occasional French film like Jean de Florette.
Doesn’t this point to the need for special revelation and general to go hand-in-hand?
Without general revelation, we don’t fully understand what depravity looks like. Without special revelation, we don’t understand that depravity is depraved.
Jeff,
Without general revelation, we don’t fully understand what depravity looks like. Without special revelation, we don’t understand that depravity is depraved.
There are plenty of real life and fictional (even fairy tales descrbe the depravity of villans) examples of human delving into the depths of depravity. I can think of the not so distant example here in SoCal of the Chelsea King and Amber DuBois murder case (teenagers reaped and murdered). The public was aghast at the evil committed by John Gardener III; talk radio, op-ed, barber-shop and pub discussions all voiced a collective outcry at how the criminal justice system could have allowed such an evil (and unrepentant) man, and already convicted sex offender, anywhere near these girls.
There was no doubt that this was depraved, the fundamental human impulse to know depravity when seen only proved the veracity of Scripture here. There were plenty of non-Christian voices describing the effects of these depraved acts by a depraved man, even if they didn’t understand the inworkings of the biblical doctrine, they could identify depravity when it is manifested so grossly. We might be blind to many effects of depravity as natural man, but we certainly are not ignorant of depravity.
If we say we can’t know depravity is depraved without scripture, then why hold the Nurenberg Trials, or have various Centers for the Holocaust, or decry terrorist attacks, or fight disease. Basic human decency, when pressed, must allow for the notion of depravity, or we would have no way to name the evil that we often encounter
I think special and general revelation go hand-in-hand, but not the way you are arguing here Jeff. I think it discounts human reason to the degree that we cannot know evil unless the bible says so. The facts just don’t bear that out. Humans believe certain things are evil by prima facie examination. Murder, unprovoked violence, preying on the weak and defensless, theft, and deception are hardly admirable to the human mind, and most rational people believe that these are wrong, evil, and even depraved. A lack of a comprehensive awareness doesn’t mean humans can’t know anything of depravity without Scripture
“First, I heard on NPR that one of the oddities about Mr. Laden’s compound was that such a massive and expensive place would not have either internet or phone service”
I wonder if Osama was taken alive, we would have heard an interesting take on media ecology (e.g. if a man uses these forms of communication he will die quicker than if he used a courier service). Hmmm.
Jed, I think everyone understands that these things are *bad*.
But not everyone understands that they are part of the human condition. A large percentage of people believe that everyone is basically good, but society | economic conditions | parental abuse | [insert other external factor here] make us do bad things.
That’s what I mean by “depravity.”
I can’t believe your referenced Jean de Florette!! That was my first experience of viewing a foreign film – watched in a small artsy movie theater in Washington D.C. back in the late eighties and it has become one of my favorite films along with its sequel Manon of the Spring.
Have you see Manon? If you haven’t you must- the ending in phenomenal. I watched the two films with a young man in my congregation just a few months ago on DVD and it had been long enough since I had seen them that I had forgotten the ending. When the ending came, the both of us erupted in audible expressions of suprise and delight.
I know it is besides the point, but I just had to comment on this- I’ve never met (or read) of anyone else who had seen the film. Fantastic!
“…although the Bible teaches human depravity God’s word doesn’t really explore it in its amazing and complicated depth…”
Huh?!? Are we reading the same Bible?
The second halves of each of the NT gospels dont explore depravity in its depth? The Psalms dont explore depravity in depth? The wisdom literature of the OT is shallow?
Weighing in on Jed’s and Jeff’s comments:
Yes, mankind can know something of good and evil, justice and injustice, right and wrong.
But Jeff is right that it is the Bible which tells us about depravity–its source, its deceitfulness, its cure.
I think that dgh is wrong to say “we need” to look at film and other portrayals for understanding of how depravity clings to our best actions. Looking just at the book of Genesis one sees more than enough of this.
When the WCF says that the Word of God is sufficient for faith and life, I take it that it means that we do not “need” films, history, etc. to know and understand depravity. The in’s and out’s of plumbing, yes, the in’s and out’s of depravity, no.
Eliza, I might defend DGH a little bit in this way: It’s easy to read Scripture and think, “That was then; this is now. Back then, they abused concubines to death and cut their bodies into pieces as a message (Jdg. 19), but we are more civilized.”
It takes looking around at current life — our enthusiasm for the death of ObL, for example — to realize that we’re not so different from them.
But there I go again, mixing Scripture and general revelation. *Sigh* One almost might accuse me of paleo-Calvinism.
As a follow-up: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/02/is-it-morally-right-to-celebrate-bin-ladens-death/?hpt=T1
Hi Eliza,
Re: the Word of God is sufficient for faith and life, I take it that it means that we do not “need” films, history, etc. to know and understand depravity.
You makes good points. I would remind that the Bible tells the history of man through the time of the apostles and as such, it is also historical . We are also told in the Bible:
But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” – Ephesians 4: 7-8
Thus, we have been given men with the gift to tell the story of the depravity of man and the history of the world not only in factual accounts but fictional accounts. Men such as Augustine, Tolkien, Lewis, and Chesterton come to mind. Perhaps, it may not be wise to limit the ways he uses the gifts he has given men for his good pleasure. Perhaps, it pleases God to use these men to help others recognize the truth and G.K. Chesterton’s quip rings true: “Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.” Open any newspaper and it is filled to the brim with mankind’s sinfulness.
Hi Jeff,
May I ask what paleo-Calvinism is?
paleo-Calvinism (lit.: “old Calvinism”) is a term with two referents. Before ever encountering OldLife, I used to jokingly refer to myself as paleo-Calvinist meaning:
* Strong view of visible church
* Committed to an exegetical + systematic method of theology
* Strong view of sacraments
* Compatibilist view of predestination
* Committed to a strong view of general revelation, confirmed by special revelation.
* A view of ordo salutis that begins with Calvin’s premise in Inst 3.1: all of our benefits flow out of being united with Christ.
And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us. To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us. — Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.1.1.
DGH, as it turns out, applies that term to himself also, but I’ll let him explain why.
Lily & Jeff,
I agree that fiction and nonfiction can demonstrate more of man’s depravity. It’s hard to miss in daily life. The news is appalling; hard to read some of it. But I quibble with the word dgh used–”need”. I think the Bible does do justice to the variety and tenacity of human evil. Do I discount the witness of humans who continue to explore it? Not at all. For example, I think Hannah Arendt’s book on Eichmann’s trial is very interesting–though she was highly criticized for it–amazing evil can be done by unthinking bureaucrats. This does not diminish the evil that he did, but it helps us understand a little more about history and ourselves. But still I can’t say we “need” it.That was my only point.
Many thanks, Jeff, I appreciate your help.
Eliza, in the interest of a friendly discussion, may I press on with some things?
I find church history fascinating. In some ways, it reminds me of the OT and NT stories where we have our scriptural villains and heroes who are men with clay feet – not unlike David, Moses, Peter, and others who had enormous falls. Such a rich romp it can be through salvation history and all of the characters in the Bible. It can also be a rich romp through church history with all of the twist and turns, the villains and heros with clay feet.
What we would have done without the early church creeds addressing heresy? What would we have done without Augustine addressing the sacking of Rome? Or the early Reformers who addressed the way the church had lost the gospel? It seems to me that it is a never ending struggle for the church while in this in-between-age of waiting for Christ to return.
I would give you a friendly nudge to consider if we “need” these men to show us evil after the canon of scripture was closed with the book of Revelation. Evil seems to morph and wear different faces in each era in order to seduce and deceive men. Thus in each era, we need men to step up to the plate and retell the stories of the past over and over again. We need men in each current age to expose evil’s new disguises and name/call evil what it is. Thus we will have all of these lovely debates over truth, error, doctrine, and contending for the faith – the continuing saga of good versus evil until Christ’s return?
Jeff, I’d hesitate saying special revelation “needs” anything. I think it is sufficient on its own. I think you’d agree. Where we likely disagree is on how wise general revelation makes us (without special revelation). I think it makes us wise. But the cross if folly.
Doug, Yes, I’ve seen Manon. Both are great movies. But the problem is that once you know how they turn out, it’s hard to find them suspenseful and so the only thing that adds to your experience on re-watching is not detecting multiple plot lines or intricacies of character development but instead the beauty of Aix en Provence and Yves Montand (what a moustach!).
David, the point is that the Bible affirms depravity. Yes it shows it also, but not the artistic expressions may. The point of Scripture is not to show the blackness of the human heart. It only has to affirm it.
Eliza, glad to know I’m always wrong.
Jeff – and thus to Lily’s question: you also forgot the easy comparison in explaining “paleo-Calvinist” as opposite of neo-Calvinist, with it’s associated ideas of cultural transformation, penchant for “kingdom work” as outside the sphere of Church ministry, penchant for kingdom of God distinct from, more comprehensive than Church. Also, perhaps paleo-Calvinist, informed by John Calvin; neo-Calvinist, informed by Abraham Kuyper.
-=Cris=-
Eliza, have you seen The Wire? Have you watched a Coen Brothers’ movie? Have you considered that we ourselves don’t know our own intentions always, that we may have layer upon layer of selfishness, all under the guise of being “normal.” I would recommend you watch some of these expressions if you can handle an R-rating.
If the Coens were to treat Jacob, it would look very different. In other words, if the OT was not given to present us with moral heroes, neither was it given to illustrate moral (the favorite word in the Mr. Laden analysis) “monsters.”
Jeff, on paleo-Calvinism, also needlessly throws in union with Christ. But I think it was designed to provoke. There I go, going to motives.
Cris, yes, I’m aware of the neo-Cal side of things. But my “paleo-Calvinism” has little to do with that controversy, so I omitted it. My “paleo-” has more to do with views of sacraments and church than to do with kingdoms and governments.
DGH: I “threw in” union because I view it as a central feature of Calvinism. I toyed with omitting it lest it be too provocative and then decided I just needed to be straight up about it.
But if we’re provoking one another, then: It’s hard to see how the lead paragraph of a book entitled “The Mode of Obtaining the Grace of Christ” could be seen as needless. Thesis statement and all that?
But what about the lady’s question: What do you mean when you call yourself “paleo-Calvinist”?
More at DGH: Keep in mind that the “union” I’m professing is the paleo-Calvin kind, the Old Princeton kind, which may-or-may-not have much to do with Garcia and Gaffin.
I’m frankly relatively ignorant of the newer theologies of union, though I’ve read a bit here and there.
So when I say “union”, think “us in Christ” (forensic) and “Christ in us” (vital), rather than a debate over what is central (which seems to me to be a quibble over definitions — are we talking architectural center, or center of importance, or what?).
Lily, I think one criteria of paleo-Calvinism also has to do with affirming the sufficiency of natural revelation to govern civil life and its insufficiency to govern ecclesial life (the way special revelation is sufficient to given ecclesial life and insufficient to govern civil life). I’m not sure where that places Jeff, since he at once is “committed to a strong view of general revelation” but denies its sufficiency to do its appointed task, namely govern civil life.
Zrim, I’m sorry, but that criterion is simply counterfactual.
For the paleo-est of Calvins, Calvin himself, taught that the office of ruler is a sacred office; that the purpose of civil government is to have a form of civil religion among men; and that the duty of the magistrate is to both tables of the Law.
There’s no hint in Calvin of your “sufficiency / insufficiency” formula. Calvin does not split knowledge into two books that have exclusive jurisdictions over different kingdoms. Instead, he takes the two as hand-in-hand:
Now, as it is evident that the law of God which we call moral, is nothing else than the testimony of natural law, and of that conscience which God has engraven on the minds of men, the whole of this equity of which we now speak is prescribed in it. Hence it alone ought to be the aim, the rule, and the end of all laws.
Wherever laws are formed after this rule, directed to this aim, and restricted to this end, there is no reason why they should be disapproved by us, however much they may differ from the Jewish law, or from each other, (August. de Civil. Dei, Lib. 19 c. 17.)
The law of God forbids to steal…
It is clear that for Calvin, the “it” which ought to be the aim, rule, and end of all laws is *simultaneously* the moral law and the natural law, not one or the other. He is equally comfortable with appealing to natural law and to the two tables as confirmations of one another.
Whereas, you resist this very notion of mutual confirmation as a confusion of Law and Gospel, a confusion of the kingdoms, etc.
There’s just no basis in fact for the sufficiency / insufficiency criterion. Calvin himself did not hold to it, and the very existence of Geneva (in which consistory and council worked together, though not comfortably) is proof of this.
Thanks, Chris, Zrim, and Dr. Hart, for more clarification on paleo-Calvin.
Zrim, I do wish there was a good way to end the 2k controversy. Scripture seems clear regarding 2k and the fact that Luther (more so) and Calvin (much less so) gave us the beginnings of 2k (if memory serves, Luther pulled 2k out of one of the RC warehouses and dusted it off), it’s guidance in our perilous times could be vital. Both men had clay feet and made mistakes in their applications of 2k in their time and had different 2k challenges than we have now. So much has happened since Luther and Calvin – 450+ years of changes with the industrial revolution, modern governments, our current technology, and so forth… we need 2k more now than ever before – there I go singing to the choir again.
Re: when I say “union”, think “us in Christ” (forensic) and “Christ in us” (vital)
Why does union with Christ have to be atomized? If Lutherettes are allowed to vote, may I vote for this word picture?
.[F]aith does not merely mean that the soul realizes that the divine word is full of grace, free and holy; it also unites the soul with Christ, as a bride is united with her bridegroom. From such a marriage, as St. Paul says, it follows that Christ and the soul become one body, so that they hold all things in common, whether for better or worse. This means that what Christ possesses belongs to the believing soul; and what the soul possesses belongs to Christ. Thus Christ possesses all good things and holiness; these now belong to the soul. The soul possesses lots of vice and sin; these now belong to Christ. Here we have a happy exchange and struggle. Christ is God and human being, who has never sinned and who’s holiness is unconquerable, eternal and almighty. So he makes the sin of the living soul his own through its wedding ring, which is faith, and acts as if he had done it himself, so that sin could be swallowed up in him. For his unconquerable righteousness is too strong for all sin, so that it is made single and free from all its sins on account of its pledge, that is its faith, and can turn to the eternal righteousness of its bridegroom, Christ. Now is this not a happy business? Christ, the rich, noble, holy bridegroom, takes in marriage this poor, contemptible and sinful little prostitute, takes away all her evil, and bestows all his goodness upon her! It is no longer possible for sin to overwhelm her, for she is now found in Christ and is swallowed up by him, so that she possesses a rich righteousness in her bridegroom.
(The Christian Theology Reader–Alister McGrath, page 229, Cited Luther’s Works 25.26-26.9)
Lily: Why does union with Christ have to be atomized?
I’m very happy with your picture and affirm it whole-heartedly.
The atomization is a throwback to a previous conversation, in which yours truly was not permitted to simply say “We are saved in union with Christ”, but had to atomize, triple-cite, qualify, and re-clarify just to demonstrate that he is not positing justification on the basis of sanctification. Hence the distinction between forensic and vital.
It’s kind of like the present situation, where I can’t just say “Here’s why I call myself paleo-Calvinist” without the choir rushing in to say “No, you aren’t.”
Thanks, Jeff. I appreciate even more clarification – I was wondering if you were getting all mathematical with your theology and wandering into Einstein land. I’m glad you like word pictures – it seems little bit more akin to the descriptive biblical language on union with Christ – ya think? ; )
Honestly, I think you will eventually surrender on 2k and finally put Calvin under the authority of what scripture says about 2k and see that he mucked up. I’m beginning to think Calvin didn’t discern Luther’s 2k in Germany and applied his errors in Geneva (Your mission Dr. Hart, should you decide to accept it. As always, should you or any of your Historian Task Force be caught or killed, the Lutherette will disavow any knowledge of your actions). Anywho, please subject Calvin to scripture, consider the link to Luther on the 2k stuff, and receive the honorable 2k doctrine (you can thank me with a chocolate cake later). ; P
We’ve been watching the old M:I shows at home. My favorite piece of TV music.
Jeff, I don’t think the point of paleo-Calvinism is to correspond to every jot and tittle of what John Calvin wrote or did. Like Lily says, and has been repeatedly admitted, Calvin was a man of his Constantinian times. I’ll stand with Kuyper who said he’d rather be unReformed and disagree with Calvin if to be Reformed meant to affirm that the duty of the magistrate is to enforce both tables of the Decalogue (and civilly punish idolaters). Nobody needs the Bible to know that stealing does not a well arranged society make; general revelation is perfectly sufficient for that. Otherwise, what’s to keep anyone from pleading not guilty by reason of having never read the Bible?
Lily, I like your singing but my Reformed sensibilities keep me out of choirs.
MI is great opening music – has the series held up with time? I haven’t seen it since it went off the air, but the line – your mission, Jim, should you decide to accept it… is still burned into the brain. Then again so are some of the old commercials (esp. Alka-Seltzer and Oscar Mayer). One thing nice about the cold war era was all of the great TV series. Do you watch any of the other spy series from that era?
Just for fun – here’s an old pre-PC commercial!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPngdP93qQ0
Zrim, I’ll play the piano if you’ll sing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8fykuW4IHk
P.S. Zrim & Jeff – sorry about the warped sense of humor, but we have high pollen counts here almost year-round so I’m pretty much hopeless in the humor department.
Lily, deal, but I don’t do bowties. I find them ostentatious. Sort of like emoticons.
Zrim, I am glad we have a deal and am looking forward to your solos (but I am still fond of Alfalfa’s outfit and cowlick)! Agreed on the emoticons, but I haven’t figured out how to not use them since I don’t know how else to let others know I’m friendly, teasing, or etc?
The series works well after about the first season — they had to work out pacing, plot twists, etc.
It was really interesting watching the Tom Cruise movie after seeing the old shows — the M:I tropes were much very noticeable.
Zrim: Jeff, I don’t think the point of paleo-Calvinism is to correspond to every jot and tittle of what John Calvin wrote or did.
Right, exactly. So it’s legitimate for you (and I) to take on the paleo-Cal label as a general description, even though you (and I) disagree with him about Inst. 4.20.
My point is that you can’t make sufficiency / insufficiency a defining characteristic of paleo-Calvinism, since Calvin himself didn’t hold to it. You can’t hold others to it, as you tried to do above.
You’re welcome to your view of sufficiency and insufficiency (as crazy-headed as it may be
). Just be conscious of the fact that it is a departure from Calvin, not an essential feature of paleo-Calvinism.
Fair?
Zrim, if I lived in Grand Rapids I wouldn’t wear bowties either.
Eliza said:
“When the WCF says that the Word of God is sufficient for faith and life, I take it that it means that we do not need films, history, etc. to know and understand depravity.”
CVT said:
“God’s revelation in nature, together with God’s revelation is Scripture, form God’s one grand scheme of covenant revelation of himself to man. The two forms of revelation must therefore be seen as presupposing and supplementing one another….Revelation in nature and revelation in Scripture are mutually meaningless without one another and mutually fruitful when taken together.”
And to show he was aware of the WCF:
“…Natural or general revelation speaks with as much authority and as directly as does the Bible, albeit in a different manner and not on redemption.
It is this complementary and supplementary character of supernatural and natural revelation that must be borne in mind when approach is made to the question of the indications of the divinity of Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks eloquently of the heavenly character, the consent of all the parts, etc., of Scripture.”
I think Spanky and Buckwheat enjoyed the humiliation of Alfalfa more than anything else. That was pretty funny. Who started that Alfalfa and Buckwheat thing anyways?
Nice article on Luther and 2K too. You are hitting homeruns lately Lily!! And I meant Alfalfa and Spanky (not Buckwheat)
Nice references from Randy too- that was helpful.
Jeff, ‘the Provocateur,’ Cagle said:
“But if we’re provoking one another, then: It’s hard to see how the lead paragraph of a book entitled “The Mode of Obtaining the Grace of Christ” could be seen as needless. Thesis statement and all that.”
I think that if one wanted the thesis for Book III, one would start with Calvin’s Argument, given as a preface. Since Calvin included it we would have no warrant to deem it superfluous. His thesis for the book is:
“The subject is comprehended under seven principal heads, which almost all point to the same end, namely, the doctrine of faith.”
If Calvin considers the theme to be faith, shouldn’t we also?
Just saying.
Jeff, I don’t think I suggested that sufficiency / insufficiency is a defining characteristic of paleo-Calvinism. I said I thought it was one criterion, which is why I wondered where it might place one like yourself who denies it. But is it really so crazy to think that nobody needs the Bible to know that stealing isn’t conducive to a well ordered society? Even the scantest of observation of human history reveals as much. Maybe crazy is as crazy does.
But another thing, Jeff. If general revelation is good enough to judge us eternally (as Paul tells us) then why in the heck isn’t it sufficient to govern temporal life?
Randy, good point. Where are you going with it? For it is in no way contrary to say that
“The doctrine of faith is the principal subject”
and
“Calvin’s thesis is that we receive all of Christ’s benefits by being united with him by faith.”
Right?
Zrim: I don’t think I suggested that sufficiency / insufficiency is a defining characteristic of paleo-Calvinism. I said I thought it was one criterion…
That’s a thin hair to split.
But while you get out your katana and magnifying glass, consider that Calvin didn’t meet your criterion. That point is sufficient to exclude the criterion of sufficiency / insufficiency.
Zrim: If general revelation is good enough to judge us eternally (as Paul tells us) then why in the heck isn’t it sufficient to govern temporal life?
Why did Paul give Christians instructions about their temporal lives? Seems like a waste of papyrus under the “sufficiency” theory.
Zrim: But is it really so crazy to think that nobody needs the Bible to know that stealing isn’t conducive to a well ordered society?
Is it really so crazy to think that if God gives Scripture to Christians, containing (among other things) instructions for their temporal lives, that they ought to seek to follow them rather than treat them as superfluous?
“Temporal lives” covers a lot more ground than civil government. Unless one thinks that government ought to order every bit of our civil lives?