May we have a little clarity on the nature of regeneration, puh-leeze? Sorry to pick on the neo-Calvinists again, but a common construction of regeneration among those who stress the antithesis is to attribute to the supernatural work of the Spirit the intellectual genius of believers. This interpretation is strongest among the neo-Calvinists who are philosophically inclined. Because they can unearth the epistemological roots of an idea or argument, and because they operate in what at times seems like a Manichean universe divided between the knowers (of Christ) and the ignorant, these neo-Calvinist philosophers believe they hold the keys to discerning the work of the Spirit. Regeneration removes the noetic effects of the fall and now allows Christians to interpret reality correctly, and even see the philosophical basis for all things.
Never mind that the arguments for Christian schools contradict this understanding of regeneration. If regeneration does produce a new w-w, then why is education necessary? Shouldn’t the regenerate already have the tools, by virtue of the illuminating power of the Spirit, to understand all things correctly? But if covenant children and the w-w challenged need to appropriate the value added material that comes from the w-w cognoscenti, then is the Spirit’s work in regeneration really responsible for a new outlook on the world? Or could it be that a w-w is much more the product of human instruction about the fundamental truths of epistemology and metaphysics, or Christian teachers who give a faith-based reading of the arts and sciences?
Another wrinkle here, by the way, is the folly that apparently afflicts believers not only about the world but also about the faith. Remember that Paul call the Galatians and Corinthians foolish even while considering these folks to be saints, that is, people who had experienced the work of the Spirit in regeneration. Also, consider that a w-w does very little justice to catechesis. In fact, in communions where w-w has expanded, catechesis has generally declined. At the same time, regeneration is no solution to the hard work of memorizing a three-figure set of doctrinal answers. It takes time, discipline, and memory.
So what we need is clarity about the noetic effects of regeneration. And we also need to distinguish among those effects, the native intelligence of persons that comes providentially from genes, family environments, and temperament, and academic proficiency in a particular area of human investigation. Clarity may start with a reminder about the nature of the spiritual illumination in regeneration. According to the Shorter Catechism:
Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel. (WSC 31)
. . . when God carries out this good pleasure in his chosen ones, or works true conversion in them, he not only sees to it that the gospel is proclaimed to them outwardly, and enlightens their minds powerfully by the Holy Spirit so that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but, by the effective operation of the same regenerating Spirit, he also penetrates into the inmost being of man, opens the closed heart, softens the hard heart, and circumcises the heart that is uncircumcised. He infuses new qualities into the will, making the dead will alive, the evil one good, the unwilling one willing, and the stubborn one compliant; he activates and strengthens the will so that, like a good tree, it may be enabled to produce the fruits of good deeds. (Dort III/IV, 11)
What sure seems clear to me is that regeneration has a narrow effect — it allows a person who had no interest in Christ to understand his need and to trust the work of Christ. It is a kind of knowledge, but it is not even necessarily knowledge of well-formulated doctrine. At the same time, regeneration does nothing to take someone from a low to a high IQ. Nor does regeneration place someone all of a sudden as a graduate of a Masters-level curriculum in western philosophy. Regeneration removes the noetic effects of sin. It does not change the brain or a person’s mastery of a body of thought.
At the same time, neo-Calvinists enraptured by western philosophy may want to remember what Calvin and Kuyper, Mr. Paleo- and Mr. Neo-Calvinist, had to say about the learning of pagans.
If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it wherever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God. For by holding the gifts of the Spirit in slight esteem, we contemn and reproach the Spirit himself. What then? Shall we deny that the truth shone upon the ancient jurists who established civic order and discipline with such great equity? Shall we say that the philosophers were blind in their fine observation and artful description of nature? Shall we say that those men were devoid of understanding who conceived the art of disputation and taught us to speak reasonably? Shall we say that they are insane who developed medicine, devoting their labor to our benefit? What shall we say of the mathematical sciences? Shall we consider them the ravings of madmen? No, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without great admiration. We marvel at them because we are compelled to recognize how preeminent they are. But shall we count anything praiseworthy or noble without recognizing at the same time that it comes from God? Let us be ashamed of such ingratitude, into which not even the pagan poets fell, for they confessed that the gods had invented philosophy, laws, and all useful arts. Those men whom Scripture [I Cor. 2:14] calls “natural men” were, indeed, sharp and penetrating in their investigation of inferior things. Let us, accordingly, learn by their example how many gifts the Lord left to human nature even after it was despoiled of its true good. (Institutes II.2.15)
. . . the unbelieving world excels in many things. Precious treasures have come down to us from the old heathen civilization. In Plato you find pages which you devour. Cicero fascinates you and bears you along by his noble tone and stirs up in you holy sentiments. And if you consider your own surroundings, that which is reported to you, and that which you derive from the studies and literary productions of professed infidels, how much more there is which attracts you, with which you sympathize and which you admire. It is not exclusively the spark of genius or the splendor of talent which excites your pleasure in the words and actions of unbelievers, but it is often their beauty of character, their zeal, their devotion, their love, their candor, their faithfulness and their sense of honesty. Yea, we may not pass it over in silence, not infrequently you entertain the desire that certain believers might have more of the attractiveness, and who among us has not himself been put to the blush occasionally by being confronted with what is called the “virtues of the heathen”? (Lectures on Calvinism, 121ff)
What is important is that Calvin does attribute to the Spirit the knowledge that pagans possess. Truth, wisdom, and intelligence do not exist independent from God. At the same time, the wisdom of pagans is spiritual work that does not include regeneration. It is in effect another iteration of the doubleness that 2K tries to maintain. In the same way that Christ rules the work of redemption differently from the order of his creation, so too the Spirit works upon the minds of people differently, with the illumination of regeneration providing a knowledge distinct from understanding politics, the liberal arts, or even neo-Calvinists’ beloved philosophy.
So once again, neo-Calvinism’s failure to follow Kuyper and figure out how to affirm a common realm that exists somewhere between the holy and the profane bites them in their argumentative backsides. Without that common realm, believers — whether fundamentalist or neo-Calvinist — will try to baptize everything and turn all truth and wisdom into the blessings of redemption and special grace.
511 Comments
Andy, beware Christian perfectionism cometh before a fall of mind.
Jon, where have Christians in the U.S. lost liberty to worship?
And have you considered that the militarization of the U.S. inevitably leads to consolidation, centralization, and uniformity — all of which destroy the liberty of persons and voluntary associations since the state needs the support of all citizens. Most Christians in the U.S. want a united United States. They fear diversity and difference. But real liberty means diversity and lots of differences.
Baus, Clouser comes to mind who uses the antithesis to divide Christian from non-Xian scholars. Remember, no neutrality (i.e. commonality)?
Zrim: Richard, part of the problem is that you seem to want exact or perfect justice instead of being content with provisional or proximate justice. All we can expect in this life is the latter because both still depend on sinful creatures. You may want to point to a current justice system and bemoan it, but nothing that is structured on natural revelation yields any worse society than what Israel had
RS: I don’t expect perfect justice, but I certainly think we should look at what perfect justice is if we are to strive for real justice at all. If you (not your personally) don’t aim at perfect justice, then what are you aiming at? No justice at all. The case of Israel, however, is that they did not seek justice but instead sought false gods.
.
Zrim: You cite examples and say of an allegedly insufficient justice system: “Those things do not require us to go back to following the OT laws as such, but surely they were far more just than what is going on in our legal system.” This is where I wonder how much it would take for theonomy to woo you.
RS: But again, looking at the underlying justice of God in the OT is not the same as saying every jot and tittle should be the law in our land.
Zrim: If it’s a more perfect justice you want to see, and if you think OT laws surpass any law humans have devised, then why not vie for OT laws?
RS: The OT laws display a justice that we should look for, but not in keeping them exactly but in looking for the principles of them.
Zrim: And have you considered that the legal system by which God chose to display his perfect justice against sin was pagan, as in the Roman cross, and not a system based upon OT jurisprudence?
RS: Your point is sound, but it misses part of the issue as well. Jesus kept the Jewish law perfectly and earned a perfect righteousness for His people. His death, while under Roman law, was also the curse of the OT law carried out.
Zrim: Part of what makes a civilization like Rome great is a swift and just legal system; if one hung on a Roman tree it was because he belonged there. Sure, to the extent that it put down the only innocent human being, the cross demonstrates the folly of proximate human justice. But if God chose that system to carry out his eternal program then it must be sufficient to regulate provisional life.
RS: Or it could also demonstrate that it was very weak in what it did. After all, Pilate caved to the Jewish leaders out of his own self-interest and as such demonstrated a great weakness in the Roman law in allowing an innocent man to be put to death.
Zrim, re your comment. It’s good to see you using the neo-Calvinist Kuyper against the theonomists. I’m not sure I regard theonomy to be neo-Calvinist in all actuality. I think the pluralism of Kuyper’s neo-Calvinism answers theonomy. I still can’t figure out why you R2K folks lump them together. Pluralism recognizes worldviews and that different groups in society have different starting points for their thinking about all sorts of things. In Kuyper the state is to allow (and perhaps even to support in societal structures where the state has an interest as in schools) the various worldviews and their institutions to flourish. Christian schools, Christian journalism, Christian political parties, Christian labor unions exist side by side with secular ones, Roman Catholic ones, and nowadays I guess we might add Islamic ones. The number and brand depends on the history and composition of the particular society. (I guess 2K folks would identify with the secular worldview.) Common ground can be struck from time to time on particular issues and there might be cooperation. Neo-Calvinism does not advocate a monolithic Christian theonomic state (unless that is the composition of the particular society).
Darryl, re your comment. Of course, it only matters when I want it to matter. Just like you.
Snarkiness aside–I think that the closer something comes to what is revealed in scripture the more regeneration matters. The WCF refers to “enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,…determining them to that which is good.” Let’s take the extreme case of the hard sciences–physics, chemistry, biochemistry–I’ve thought a lot about these topics. I grasp them. I teach them. I don’t think regeneration helped me understand the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation. Natural ability aided by good professors, textbooks, doing homework, and finally, being forced to teach it mattered most. By and large I don’t think regeneration matters a lot in most of what scientists do. The presuppositions of an orderly universe and an empirically derived theory is what is needed to do science. Theists presuppose this in a lawful creation where God was free to create how he pleased, thus we have order and we have a need to actually look at what God created in order to see what he did. Non-theists get there by saying that’s just the way it is. Either way you can do good science based on those foundations.
However, part of the truth of science that gets to its spiritual dimension that is impacted by regeneration is the acknowledgment that nature is Creation. That it is created. That it has a Creator. This is actually quite fundamental religious/spiritual truth that some atheists deny. The denial of the Creator is a form of idolatry (Rom 1:18ff.) It seems to me that regeneration “cures” you of that particular intellectual (which is really a spiritual) problem. At least “the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed”–surely that includes the idolatry of Atheistic Naturalism. Admittedly, that idolatry like many others rears its ugly head even in believers–but, as WCF says, its “dominion” is destroyed. You may complain that this isn’t really science and I would concur, but to the likes of Richard Dawkins and the other new atheists, atheism is a consequence of science. In their darkened minds one of the conclusions of the hard sciences is atheism. But the “intellectual” enlightenment that I am talking about doesn’t require advanced degrees in the hard sciences. There is a sense in which the non-scientist believer who “knows” that God created the sun knows more about the sun (or at least has a more fundamental knowledge about the sun) than the astronomer who knows all the technical details about its luminosity, its chemical composition, the nuclear processes that take place there, its cosmic history, etc. but denies its divine origin and Providential upholding and purpose.
The closer you get to revealed truths (spiritual matters) the more regeneration (which awakens our trust in revealed truths) matters. So in psychology, for example, a psychologist who does not recognize the reality that human beings are body/soul dualities, that we are fundamentally religious creatures, that human nature was created good and in God’s image, but is now fallen, that the work of the Holy Spirit sanctifies, etc., is going to miss the mark on the truth about human beings.
I’m really not sure that Paul (not the apostle) is saying much different from this. Regeneration, having a Christian mind, being influence by Biblical teaching and the Reformed confessions, matter in our thinking when the thinking, theorizing, etc. get close to topics that are spiritual and religiously influenced. As you can see, even the hard sciences provide some example of that. I honestly think this allows for a consistent reading of Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, and Van Til.
So the upshot is that it matters when it matters (not just when I want it to matter or when you don’t want it to matter). As for your reference to Kloosterman, I think there is a lot riding on that word “truly”. Can non-Christians do chemistry? Of course, “after a fashion” as Van Til puts it (see the link I gave in the previous comment in this thread). And you have to be pretty smart to do chemistry (at least people who can’t figure it out think so). Those kind of smarts aren’t the result of regeneration–they are the result of humans being created in the image of God and of common grace. But doing chemistry isn’t the same as “truly” interpreting the natural world. I actually resist the phrase “natural world” or “nature” because it connotes autonomy. To call the “natural world” Creation is much more religiously/spiritually rooted and recognizes the Creator. I realize that some may see that as mere semantics, but I think it makes a point.
I think at some point it might be worth asking what do we mean by a Christian worldview. To me most of it is Biblical/Confessional. There is a God, he has revealed himself to us, he has such and such attributes, he made the world, he made humans, including me, humans have fallen into sin, Christ came to save us and initiated the new age with his death, resurrection, ascension, session, and giving of the Holy Spirit, he will come again to judge the world and usher in the fullness of the eschatological age. In one sense, thinking about all of life in light of those truths is all that we’re talking about. If that Christian confession is true, how do I now live? I honestly can’t see how you all can object to this.
As for citations–I’d like to see something by Kuyper, Dooyeweerd, Runner, Spykman, Clouser, H. Hart, Goheen, Bartholomew that gives the radical denial of common grace that you imply in your original post. And, really, do you read Clouser to say anything more than what I’m saying here?
Psssst Richard, I was being sarcastic!!
“” I was going to say that, but missed.
Terry, I think the human sciences are much closer to the hard sciences than you think. Everyone is interpreting. Facts aren’t simply out there. In which case, to use your examples, psychology is more like chemistry than your neo-Calvinism admits.
I don’t necessarily object to your w-w. What I don’t see is why it needs to be turned on all the time for whatever a person does. Most neo-Cals speak of an epistemological self-consciousness that is impossible even to philosophers when they eat a meal or cross the street.
Christian schools and the rationale for them are a classic instance of denying common grace — as if we need to send our children to Christian institutions so that they learn the right way (in contrast to Daniel). BTW, this rationale goes all the way to the top — it is called the Free University.
Terry, the reason for seeing neos and theos on a spectrum is that both seem to want Christianity to have direct and obvious bearing on the plight of the provisional age. Both seem incognizant of what it means that Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, almost as if he had his fingers crossed when telling us this. Both lack a robust sense of otherworldiness, lack which seems to be what causes them to think 2kers are latent Gnostics and Dispesationalists.
You mention schools. I was reminded of just how neos and theos fall along a spectrum yesterday when a neo-Calvinist friend from my former CRC communion approvingly passed along this paranoid piece:
http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/public-schools-social-justice-education-cloaks-marxist-teaching/#.T-dUWSAe0_0.facebook
But as conservative Calvinists, 2kers worry more about theonomic agendas in the church than Marxist ones in the world. I get that neos have their distinctions from theos, but it’s a distinction without a difference because you both think Christianity has to be relevant. But the doctrines of religious relevancy are a function of modernity, not the teachings of the NT. I appreciate the seeming affirmation of creation in the neo-Calvinist outlook, but when it moves from a robust affirmation of creation to a dubious form of redemption, you’ve gone off the rails.
Richard, you continue with a false dichotomy between perfect justice and no justice. There is a proximate justice and it’s what we should be content to live with.
And if you want to cull principles out of OT laws in order to apply them to contemporary pursuits of justice then you’ve begun to employ a hermeneutic that is less than Christological. In other words, the OT laws were given to point to Christ alone, not give us pointers on how to arrange our public policies. Maybe you’re tempted to say it’s both, but that seems to be a form of “Jesus plus something else.” By his own hermeneutic, the Scriptures are about him alone.
John Yeazel: Psssst Richard, I was being sarcastic!!
RS: I realized that which was why I didn’t reply.
Zrim: Richard, you continue with a false dichotomy between perfect justice and no justice. There is a proximate justice and it’s what we should be content to live with.
RS: I don’t think that I am as I don’t think that a perfect justice will be found in practice on earth by men until heaven.. However, if one is not seeking true justice, what is one seeking? What is your proximate justice guided by and what is the goal of it? If there is no true standard for justice, then there is a false standard or not standard at all. I don’t think that leads to real justice but instead is a system that is set up for some civility rather than order. But that is not the same thing as setting up a false dichotomy.
Zrim: And if you want to cull principles out of OT laws in order to apply them to contemporary pursuits of justice then you’ve begun to employ a hermeneutic that is less than Christological. In other words, the OT laws were given to point to Christ alone, not give us pointers on how to arrange our public policies. Maybe you’re tempted to say it’s both, but that seems to be a form of “Jesus plus something else.” By his own hermeneutic, the Scriptures are about him alone.
RS: True justice always points to Christ in some way just like everything there is points to Christ in some way. All things were created through Him and were created for Him. While it may be accurate to say that all things point to Christ, that is not the same thing as saying that the OT laws cannot be used as a guideline for justice. Many things have more than one use. The Law was given to point to Christ, yes, but there are different ways that it did this. One way was in setting out what perfect justice and now men have a standard to show them their sin and need for Christ. So again, we are back to one use of reading the OT which is to show some practical ways that true justice works.
RS:Those things do not require us to go back to following the OT laws as such, but surely they were far more just than what is going on in our legal system.
RS: The OT laws display a justice that we should look for, but not in keeping them exactly but in looking for the principles of them
Sean: Richard, As Zrim has pointed out, a great deal of what you say tracks VERY closely with theonomy. To be fair to theonomists, they are not jot and tittle folk,as they work it out. They argue for an interpretive exercise accomodated to a modern context but looking for as much positive application as possible when applying siniatic case law. There’s a great deal of acovenantal interpretation and sphere bounding transgressions that NL2K folk object to when this is being championed and argued for, but that’s another discussion. You might really benefit from giving ground to the idea of ‘proximate’ justice and patience and lowered expectations. I understand you also want to argue for the principle of shooting for perfection but in reality ending up with something less but that STILL being better than what we have. But, is that really what ends up happening when you’re dealing with human political systems? Isn’t generally what occurs a deformation in the form of totalitarianism or despotic monarchianism or other such ‘ultimate’, often times theocratic, political systems? All in the name of aiming for Camelot, even a religious one, we end up with the Emperor’s cult. Despite all our supposed best intentions, we are a pretty sinful lot, and maybe, just maybe God’s intention is to keep us pining away for something better.
John Yeazel: Psssst Richard, I was being sarcastic!!
RS: I realized that which was why I didn’t reply.
That made me laugh Richard- I’m glad you can take it not to seriously too. We are both working on completely different assumptions about the nature of regeneration, renewal and our own inherent righteousness and holiness after justification and sanctification. I think we remain simultaneously fallen (sinful) yet justified. Our justification and sanctification is something completely outside of us. The Christ in us and the Holy Spirit in us has to do with cleansing our consciences and washing away our gulit which liberates us to good works. We cannot perform good works when we are under condemnation- these types of works are dead works. You think our inherent holiness is something which is progressive and changes us internally and makes us different internally than the unregenerate. I think this is dangerous and leads to subtle forms of self-righteousness, even when we convince ourselves that it is the Holy Spirit we are relying on for this internal change.
Zrim, I guess we’ll just have to disagree. You are putting a lot of weight on John 18:36. You read it “My kingdom is not of Creation.” Why isn’t it rather “My kingdom is not of this sinful evil age”? Or “My kingdom is not of the militaristic, power base of which your Roman kingdom is”? You use this verse to deny the relevance of the kingdom of God for Creation in general. Given the testimony of the rest of scripture, I think you are quite mistaken. If 2k (vs. neo-Cal) is based on this verse, then it’s a rather flimsy position. Of course, we both recognize that Jesus’s way is not the way of conquest and of force–that hearts are changed by the power of the spirit and faith in Christ ensues. We also know that redemptive victory and the setting right of all thing came through his death on the cross. I don’t think that Jesus is even suggesting the temporariness of Creation here. Earthly powers are subject to divine rule even though they don’t know it.
When Christian citizens and politicians base their decisions on principles of God’s Word and his Kingdom rule, they are also not being of this world in the sense that Jesus referred.
Terry;
‘When Christian citizens and politicians base their decisions on principles of God’s Word and his Kingdom rule’
Sean; Terry, what are these UNIQUELY biblical principles and how specifically do they do this in accord with ‘his Kingdom rule’ and how do they(politicians particularly, but otherwise as well) do this without transgressing the sphere bounds of the church?
Darryl, I think you’re missing my point. I did not say that the hard sciences were free from being impacted by the Christian worldview. The example about Creation is fundamental. And I think it applies across all disciplines. We could also think about literature–of course, much of literature is about the human experience. Of course, we have to interpret literature in light of the worldview (in the post-modernist sense) of the writer–his/her times, culture, personal history, corporate history. More or less anyone can do that. But do we evaluate that in light of truth–The Truth. Do we ask, “Is this a right reading of human experience?”
I’m glad to hear that you don’t object to the Reformed Confession as worldview. Perhaps you’re more of a neo-Cal than you want to imagine. I think you overestimate the requirement for self-conscious reflection. Even Reformational philosophers recognize ordinary experience. Most that I know don’t have a problem enjoying God’s good gifts in Creation and thanking God for them. Of course, thanking God for them is an expression of their worldview.
I disagree that Christian schools are a denial of common grace. Most of what is taught is the result of non-Christian scholarship and artistry. No denial of common grace here. Christian education says the Reformed confession (i.e. what we believe about God, humanity, history, the good, the bad, how it gets fixed, the end) is worth thinking about as we do the disciplines. The secularist (2K’s excepted , of course) thinks the same. Public education says the secular confession (see the Humanist Manifesto I & II) is worth thinking about as they do the disciplines. No doubt there’s lots of overlap because we live in the same Creation and even post-modernists can’t deny the relevance of gravity. Secularists (aside from 2K’s) are neo-Cals in the sense that they too live all of life include their schools in light of their worldview.
Darryl and all, Here’s a question. Do you think it’s possible to be a Reformed theologian and do Reformed theology without being converted? Remember the Gilbert sermon, “On the Dangers of an Unconverted Ministry”. Is it possible to rightly exegete, apply, and preach the Word of God without being regenerated? Is theology a science as Hodge and Warfield used to say (queen of the sciences)? How is our theologizing influenced by our regeneration? Why are there different theological traditions if the same Holy Spirit is influencing the thinking about all this?
Terry, in fact I do read it as not of this present evil age (not as a denial of Christ’s lordship over creation). Though it is not at all unusual for a neo-Calvinist to say this, it is odd to me that you’d think a 2k reading is a way to deny the very goodness of creation. 2k says it’s so very good that it doesn’t need to be redeemed, while neo-Calvinism seems to find something wrong with creation that it needs to be transformed. This is the irony of your last remark. When from out of your imprecise distinction between creation and redemption you guys talk about transforming the world, my 2k mind wants to know what is wrong with it. Sure, it’s got its problems, but it looks pretty good as-is to me. Are you sure it’s not neo-Calvinism that is in a state of denial?
As to your question, I think Noe has shown that it is possible for an unbeliever to do Reformed theology. That it is preferred is another matter. And the Reformed tradition has always maintained that the efficacy of the means of grace does not depend on the whether their minister is regenerate. So be careful pointing to Tennant’s revivalistic sermonizing that was high on conversion and low on the means of grace.
Terry,
1)yes
2)yes
3)yes, if you want to talk about a body of knowledge which can be known and/or needs to be known(intellectually)
4)Well, we ‘know’ that body of knowledge but now ‘savingly’ . IOW, we exercise saving faith towards He of whom the scripture testifies.
5) That same Holy spirit does not call all effectually, and even when he does, not all things in scripture are plain in themselves, nor clear unto all.
Sean, there are sphere bounds for the church. I’m not sure there are sphere bounds for the individual believer. He/she acts as a godly citizen in the sphere of the state, a godly parent in the sphere of the family, a godly scientist in the sphere of academia, a godly businessman in the sphere of the marketplace. In none of those spheres is there a need to go through “the church as church”. The principles are quite general. For example, the state is not ultimate. Does that have implications for how one does politics? There is evil in the world that needs to be constrained by the civil magistrate. Does that have implications for how one does politics. Nature is not autonomous and is Creation. Does that have implications for how one does science? Surely, the doctrine of Providence tells us that we can’t conclude Naturalism as a philosophical system from a successful mechanistic science. Etc.
Zrim, don’t assume I’m on Gilbert Tennant’s side.
You seem to have a very limited view of Creation. Creation include societal structures and political systems and economic systems, etc. There’s a lot wrong with those. Creation includes the human soul. A lot wrong with that too as brilliant as we are. The Creation groans and waits for full redemption just like you and I do. If you think it’s pretty good now then I suggest that you are denying the effects of the Fall. The Fall had consequences for Creation and those consequences are part of what is renewed in the cosmic redemption of all things–Colossians 1. I do not suggest that you deny the goodness of Creation. You do deny the persistence of Creation. The Bible says that it will be renewed — the fires of Peter are purging fires not destroying fires. I’ve thought from first reading DVD that the problem is with the eschatology primarily.
John Yeazel:
RS: I realized that which was why I didn’t reply.
John Yeazel: That made me laugh Richard- I’m glad you can take it not to seriously too. We are both working on completely different assumptions about the nature of regeneration, renewal and our own inherent righteousness and holiness after justification and sanctification. I think we remain simultaneously fallen (sinful) yet justified.
RS: But I agree that we are simultaneously fallen and yet justified.
John Yeazel: Our justification and sanctification is something completely outside of us. The Christ in us and the Holy Spirit in us has to do with cleansing our consciences and washing away our gulit which liberates us to good works. We cannot perform good works when we are under condemnation- these types of works are dead works.
RS: But Christians are created for good works, which means a person does good works when that person is converted (Eph 2:10). The context of that argument is that works do not save, but instead a person is saved for good works. Going back to Colossians 1:27 and Christ in the soul, just two verses later (29) he says this: ” For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.” Paul labored according to His power which worked within him. So the conclusion is not hard to see that something of sanctification comes from within the person.
John Yeazel: You think our inherent holiness is something which is progressive and changes us internally and makes us different internally than the unregenerate. I think this is dangerous and leads to subtle forms of self-righteousness, even when we convince ourselves that it is the Holy Spirit we are relying on for this internal change.
RS: Whether it is dangerous or not does not determine the truth of the matter. If I determine something is dynamite and therefore dangerous that does not make it stop being dynamite.
Hebrews 12:10 “For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.” My position is that when Christ is in a person and the Spirit makes them His temple, that person shares in His holiness rather than finding a righteousness of holiness of his own. Again, if our power and strength comes from another, it must come from Him who lives in us.
Terry,
Great comments. You do a way better job of articulating these points than I could.
Terry,
How about the short answer is it makes a subjective difference, unto the glory of God, but not an objective difference; a 3/4′ fitting can be objectively, optimally, threaded to a 3/4′ pipe, by a regenerate or unregenerate person. And I’m not sure the principles you have given are uniquely scriptural though maybe not inconsistent with scripture and seem readily available via general revelation. Certainly the roman jurists knew a thing or two about ‘good’ governance apart from special revelation and to the extent which one arrives at the state as a penultimate sphere, seems to me the theocrats violate this a lot more often than the pagan secularists, one can be said to ‘rightly’ understand the role of the sphere(whichever one under consideration, the state in this case) as a ‘created’ or temporal or contextualized opportunity as opposed to an eternal, ultimate one. I’m not sure how the neo-calvinist, seeking objective differentiation, doesn’t end up eclipsing the Imago Dei of all human creatures, albeit maybe unintentionally, and over-realizing the redemptive impact and scope of election. I mean, rom 2:14-15 is still true, and even the unregenerate sin and get it wrong fairly often.
Zrim,
Zrim: “2k says it’s so very good that it doesn’t need to be redeemed, while neo-Calvinism seems to find something wrong with creation that it needs to be transformed.”
Seriously? Have you heard of the fall? What about Romans 8 where it talks about creation groaning? Not to repeat Terry, but it’s such an obvious point. You seem to totally deny the fall, or at least radically compartmentalize it.
Every time I start to think I can MAYBE KINDA start to see where some of the R2K guys are coming from (even if I don’t agree with them), one of them comes out with a totally radical statement like this and I go back to thinking they are waaaaaayyyyyyyy out of whack.
How can you complain about the charge of gnosticism if you separate creation from human souls so radically?
Darryl,
You must not be reading me too closely because I have already stated my fears of militarization and its centralizing influence.
As far as losing liberty to worship (although I didn’t define liberty this narrowly), we haven’t lost it yet, but we may be headed that way fast. How long do you think it will be before you aren’t allowed to exegete Romans 1 in public (homosexuality)?
Oops, that should be the regenerate sin and get it wrong fairly often.
Darryl: “Jon, you are a great example of a neo-Cal who can’t give an account of the intelligence, wisdom, and philosophy of unbelievers. For you it has been all folly. Please tell me where I am wrong about your underestimation of unbelievers (or the God who sustains them).”
Here you go:
DGH “attribute to the supernatural work of the Spirit the intellectual genius of believers”
Jon: I never said the HS makes believers GENIUS, or even smarter. What I did say it that he grants them the BEGINNING of true wisdom. If they ARE smart, then they can use their smarts in a God-glorifying direction. And if they aren’t smart, they can still possess a true wisdom of how to live life.
DGH: “because they operate in what at times seems like a Manichean universe divided between the knowers (of Christ) and the ignorant”
Jon: I never called unbelievers ignorant. They can be highly intelligent. But their worldview can never substantiate their proximate knowledge. Maybe using Calvin’s proximate/ultimate dichotomy and applying it to epistemology would be helpful.
DGH: “If regeneration does produce a new w-w, then why is education necessary? Shouldn’t the regenerate already have the tools, by virtue of the illuminating power of the Spirit, to understand all things correctly?”
Jon: This is just a gross caricature. No one has ever argued that the HS grants wisdom apart from means. In other words, wisdom is HOW knowledge is used. It’s how the facts are organized and interpreted. That’s why a pagan can be an expert at calculus, but never really understand or give an account for WHY calculus is possible in his random universe.
DGH: “In fact, in communions where w-w has expanded, catechesis has generally declined.”
Jon: Not in mine. Correlation is not causation.
DGH: “At the same time, regeneration does nothing to take someone from a low to a high IQ. Nor does regeneration place someone all of a sudden as a graduate of a Masters-level curriculum in western philosophy”
Jon: No one has ever argued this. Ever. That’s why I called it a straw man.
Terry, when I say creation I have in mind the things you list—it includes everything from rocks and rivers to societal structures to economic systems. But I also make a distinction between animated and non-animated creation, or that which is made in the imago Dei and that which isn’t. Rocks and economic systems are in the latter class. Only human beings are in the former and as such are the only facet of creation that can be said to be the target of redemption right now. Neo-Calvinism seems to want to include rocks and economies, but that would seem to suggest that Jesus not only lived and died for his PEOPLE but also their social, political, and economic systems (and rocks). And out pops something awkward about redeeming creation. This strikes me as quite odd for any Reformed to embrace, since, to the extent we agree it reflects the biblical witness, covenant theology is about God and his people. It also seems borderline sacrilegious to imply that Jesus lived and died for anything other than that which is made in God’s image.
I agree that the non-animated aspect of creation groans for renewal. But a more precise way of saying it is that it groans for the sons of God to be revealed because it knows that the imago Dei creation has primacy over it—as goes the state of human beings, so goes the state of everything else created. Once the sons of God are revealed, all things will be set aright.
DGH: “What is important is that Calvin does attribute to the Spirit the knowledge that pagans possess. Truth, wisdom, and intelligence do not exist independent from God. At the same time, the wisdom of pagans is spiritual work that does not include regeneration. It is in effect another iteration of the doubleness that 2K tries to maintain. In the same way that Christ rules the work of redemption differently from the order of his creation, so too the Spirit works upon the minds of people differently, with the illumination of regeneration providing a knowledge distinct from understanding politics, the liberal arts, or even neo-Calvinists’ beloved philosophy. ”
This last part regarding Christ’s rule being different in creation vs. redemption and the subsequent conclusion that politics, arts, and philosophy are therefore morally-neutral (or at least unaffected by regeneration), needs a systematic argument and Biblical support. This is a huge conclusion with a wide impact and merely asserting it is not enough. I need proof.
Jon, like I said to Terry, if you don’t make a distinction between non/imago Dei creation then it seems to me you end up having to say that Jesus lived and died for fish and government. Talk about way out of whack. Is it really so rrrrrrradical to suggest that only human beings are the target of redemption? My guess is that you don’t bring your dog to church.
Zrim,
Your theology results in the most radical and extreme conclusions. I doubt that anything but a tiny minority of Reformed folk would agree with them.
1) Christian schools are unnecessary. (This one is the most easily empirically disproven.)
2) The fall didn’t affect creation.
3) And the worst one: Reformed theology can be done by a unregenerate person. Theology is knowing God. If you claim you can know God, without really knowing him, something is off in your theology.
I fear the radical two kingdom folk are starting with a conclusion perhaps (they don’t want to involve themselves in government) and working backwards into a theology. But it produces all kinds of problems and contradictions, which is why they have to write articles about why it’s okay to sound convoluted and self-contradictory. But I don’t think most Reformed folk would agree with this way of thinking. I think that if you start to contradict yourself, you need to take a hard look at where you went wrong.
Colossians 1:22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him
mark: but wait wait, not yet, not now, not by Christ’s death alone, that was only the first step, that death and resurrection alone would not reconcile anybody, let alone cause them to be presented holy and blameless, this verse does not have the word “soul” in it, so we need to move on to other important stuff
23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation[g] under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.
mark: and to continue means to move on, I don’t deny that business about now and about reconciliation by Christ’s body of flesh or by Christ’s death, indeed I agree with all that, I am reformed, so now lets assume that and shift to talking about the soul, which of course is also part of the hope, indeed, if we read on enough we shall see that when it comes to being holy then we shall need to talk not only about Christ in us, but also about what Christ is causing us to be and to do, so that we know that by His presence He is making us holy but not quite yet, He in our souls is making us blameless but of course not yet perfectly….
24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, 25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. 27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
mark: and of course that doesn’t mean Christ in you, we know from Edwards that it means Christ in your souls, and even Plato knew that our souls are not us, but something immaterial and invisible in us, and also remember that the hope is not merely Christ’s presence but also Christ’s presence as a means to an end, which is of course changing our souls, making us better than we were, and tomorrow better than we were yesterday, so of course we are not yet holy, not yet totally blameless, but nevertheless we can approach God with some assurance now not so much because of that death alone, that was only justification, but we can now approach God, or begin to, not because of a righteousness done already, but by means of a righteousness being done by us, because Christ is in us, and remember I am not talking about justification now, but don’t forget sanctification, and you can’t be really holy or truly worship God until in your soul God changes you so that you too can begin to fulfill the law and thus begin to approach, it’s not an either or because you can’t just be justified because now that your soul has been changed your work is not only accepted as not dead work but now accepted as some of the reason you are holy, not strictly of course, but in grace…..
“My guess is that you don’t bring your dog to church.” I’m taking that, thank you very much, and the cannolis
Zrim,
I don’t even totally disagree with how you put it: “But a more precise way of saying it is that it groans for the sons of God to be revealed because it knows that the imago Dei creation has primacy over it—as goes the state of human beings, so goes the state of everything else created. Once the sons of God are revealed, all things will be set aright.”
In a way you are stating federal theology (with regard to man representing creation, in a sense). I don’t disagree.
But how do you go from there to concluding that creation is “just fine” as it goes and doesn’t need redemption? And then go from there and say that creation is so good that we don’t even need a uniquely Christian way of educating children? It’s your conclusions that seem radical to me.
Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, 25 of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, 26 the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. 27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
mark: and of course that doesn’t mean Christ in you,
RS: There are many verses that speak of Christ in you and of the Spirit being in believers. In fact, Jesus tells us that the Father will make His abode in them as well. Of course the text does mean Christ in you.
McMark: we know from Edwards that it means Christ in your souls, and even Plato knew that our souls are not us, but something immaterial and invisible in us,
RS: I think we should follow Scripture rather than Plato (or at least your intepretation of him) on this point. When the man Adam was given life, he because a living soul. What is it about my soul that can fail to heed a prophet and yet that is apart from me or not me? You may be flirting with some form of Gnosticism here. A human being is created body and soul.
1 Corinthians 15:45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
Acts 3:23 ‘And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’
McMark: and also remember that the hope is not merely Christ’s presence but also Christ’s presence as a means to an end, which is of course changing our souls, making us better than we were, and tomorrow better than we were yesterday, so of course we are not yet holy, not yet totally blameless, but nevertheless we can approach God with some assurance now not so much because of that death alone, that was only justification, but we can now approach God, or begin to, not because of a righteousness done already, but by means of a righteousness being done by us, because Christ is in us, and remember I am not talking about justification now, but don’t forget sanctification, and you can’t be really holy or truly worship God until in your soul God changes you so that you too can begin to fulfill the law and thus begin to approach, it’s not an either or because you can’t just be justified because now that your soul has been changed your work is not only accepted as not dead work but now accepted as some of the reason you are holy, not strictly of course, but in grace…..
RS: One is declared perfectly holy and righteous on the basis of Christ alone. However, the one that knows God and is united to Christ that soul now lives in love because love lives in him or her. It is the grace of God in the soul that grants that soul to share in His divine nature (II Peter 1:4) that we may become partakers or share His holiness (Heb 12:10). When a true believer is holy, it is not something done outside of Christ, but it is a sharing in the holiness of God through Christ and by the Spirit.
Terry,
Something I’ve been wondering about, and this seems like a good opportunity to ask: Is it possible to hold to neo-Cal epistemology without also holding to neo-Cal eschatology? You say:
I think at some point it might be worth asking what do we mean by a Christian worldview. To me most of it is Biblical/Confessional. There is a God, he has revealed himself to us, he has such and such attributes, he made the world, he made humans, including me, humans have fallen into sin, Christ came to save us and initiated the new age with his death, resurrection, ascension, session, and giving of the Holy Spirit, he will come again to judge the world and usher in the fullness of the eschatological age. In one sense, thinking about all of life in light of those truths is all that we’re talking about.
Hard to argue with that. But then you also say (to Zrim):
I do not suggest that you deny the goodness of Creation. You do deny the persistence of Creation. The Bible says that it will be renewed — the fires of Peter are purging fires not destroying fires. I’ve thought from first reading DVD that the problem is with the eschatology primarily.
In your view, does one have to agree with the latter to agree with the former? Can one be neo-Cal without holding to a high degree of continuity between the present creation and the new one?
I hope it is OK to butt into the conversation so late. Terry, you wrote, “However, part of the truth of science that gets to its spiritual dimension that is impacted by regeneration is the acknowledgment that nature is Creation. That it is created. That it has a Creator.”
How is this uniquely impacted by regeneration? I see that a regenerate person will acknowledge these things, but so will mormons, jews, muslims, and unitarians. It seems to me that these truths are less a consequence of regeneration than of common grace.
Jon, I take it you now see how I’m not saying the fall didn’t affect creation. Yes, my point about redemption being for human beings follows a federal theology.
But how do you go from there to concluding that creation is “just fine” as it goes and doesn’t need redemption? And then go from there and say that creation is so good that we don’t even need a uniquely Christian way of educating children? It’s your conclusions that seem radical to me.
Because creation is still very good. Are you saying it isn’t very good anymore? There is no question that humans are fallen and sinful. Rom 1-3 and Eph 1-2 (among other places) is abundantly clear about that. What is less clear to me that creation per se is fallen or sinful, nor is it clear to me that creation or creational enterprises need to be redeemed, though evangelicals and transformationalists speak this way routinely. Creation is subject to futility (Rom 8:19-23) and is groaning to be released from the bondage to decay and to enter into the consummate state, but that is not quite the same thing as to say that creation is “fallen.” Rocks don’t have any faculties. They don’t sin. I doubt that dogs sin. My Goldendoodle is stubborn. Certainly she suffers from the consequences of the fall, but whatever we say in that regard, nothing about the fall makes creation evil or even something that needs to be “redeemed.” I worry about the effect of equivocating about sin and redemption by applying the same terms to humans and creationally generally. The effect is to broaden thus weakening the ideas of sin and redemption.
But how do you go from federal theology, which is about God and man, to redemption being about God and man and everything else? And how is to question the need for a uniquely Christian way of delivering the 3rs really so rrrrradical? I know it touches a third rail among P&R influenced more by modernity than catechetical religion, but I’ve yet to be convinced it’s as necessary as catechism.
Terry, let’s be clear. I do object to the confession being turned into w-w. A confession is an affirmation by the church. A w-w is something Hegel had.
What I don’t get is how your w-w waxes and wanes. Sometimes it’s only doctrine. Then it goes cosmic. Neo-cals do need a little discipline and restraint.
If not a denial of common grace, how do Christian schools affirm common grace? Isn’t there a lot of doubt raised by Xian schools about other kinds of schools? And have you not heard, Kuyper doubted the outlook of liberals and the schooling they provided. Sometimes the antithesis is hard to handle. Again, more restraint or clarity please.
Terry, if it is possible to conjecture that the sermon by an unregenerate minister is the word of God (as the second Helvetic affirms) it is certainly conceivable that Reformed theology could be done (though not ideally) by an unregenerate believer.
Terry, has it dawned on you that neo-Cals have an overly high estimate of creation, and that the categories for creation are not damnation and salvation but good and blessed. The original creation was only good, not blessed. Creation will not be blessed until Christ’s return (whether that means getting nuked or simply transformed). But ever since Al Wolters Creation Regained, neo-Cal’s have not done justice to the fact that Adam, even though created good, had another stage of existence waiting for him if he did not sin. The original creation was not as good as it gets.
BTW, when is a neo-Cal ever going to do more than wave the wand over Col. 1? Calvin did not think that Paul’s appeal to the cosmos implied “all creation.” Do neo-Cals do exegesis?
Jon, in the U.S., it will be pretty long. Just play the victim card and Washington D.C. goes wobbly.
Zrim, we’ve been here before. I guess it’s sort of an impasse. The scope of the Fall and the scope of Redemption and the scope of the Eschatological Renewal is the same as the scope of all Creation. It’s all things, cosmic in scope. Dogs don’t have eternal souls, but I’d guess there will be dogs on the New Earth. They don’t have to come to church get renewed. That’s the other part where we are at an impasse. You see everything happening via church as church. I see believers living out their vocation in the world bringing salt and light to every area of life (church as organism; believers expressing God’s rule in all of life).
Jon, good, so we agree. Regeneration has little if anything to do with intelligence or philosophy. I don’t think the rest of the w-wers will agree. Why establish a separate university run on Christian convictions if you think that philosophy and other forms of learning can be learned as well at a state university?
Jon, who used the word neutral? The word in play is common. But if politics, arts and philosophy are not morally neutral, then how can you say that regeneration is not the basis for genuine learning and wisdom? After all, if philosophy is not neutral, then an unbelieving philosopher cannot be telling the truth. Can he?
Jon, how could you “prove” that Christian schools are necessary? Also, creation did not sin. Creation may groan because it has to support sin. But it cannot be redeemed (and doesn’t need to be). It doesn’t have a soul. It wasn’t in covenant with God. There is a difference between wicked, good, and blessed. The original creation was not blessed, only good.
Darryl, Christian schools recognize common grace by using the fruit of unbelievers science, art, literature, philosophy, psychology, etc. Granted, they are subjected to scrutiny to see if any fruit of an unbelieving worldview produces any of their conclusions, but clearly, much of the science taught in a Christian school is the work of unbelievers. We’ve probably learned a thing or two about the psychology of learning from unbelievers. There are plenty of novelists, historians, artists, computer programmers, etc. worth studying and learning from. Don’t forget the CRC/PR battle in the 1920′s. Neo-Cals are advocates of common grace. You yourself quoted Kuyper in the lead post. Why do you keep acting like Kuyper is not a neo-Cal?
Again, you’re making stuff up. Who says that Adam didn’t have another stage of existence–his eschatological reward for keeping the covenant of works? Why do you think that neo-Cals don’t recognize that there is a discontinuity (as much as I have been emphasizing the continuity)? There will be no more death, there will no sin, there will be perfect communion with God, as it would have been had Adam reached his eschatological goal. That’s a pretty substantial discontinuity and it will not come as a result of neo-Cal’s kingdom building efforts but by the coming of our Lord to put an end to the remaining rebellion. As the Vossians say, “eschatology precedes soteriology”. Who denies that? Why do you think the neo-Cal denies that? Why does kingdom in all areas of life and “redemption” of all things imply that there won’t be a Parousia where the drama dramatically ends? Who says that the original Creation was as good as it gets? Obviously not, especially if Adam was “able to sin”. Surely, “not able to sin”, our condition after the New Heavens and the New Earth are brought in is better. The threat of “you shall sure die” will no longer be over us as it was for Adam. That’s better too. But why the eschatological glorification implies the undoing of the Created order is beyond me. I just don’t see where you get it. The imagery of both the Old Testament prophets and the Apocalypse paint a picture of continuity–but not only a return to the original Creation but a eschatological emergence of everything as it was meant to be had Adam not sinned. Christ brings us to the glory that eluded Adam. Not only that but we get to see writ large God’s love, grace, and mercy toward Adam’s race that had at first failed–something we may have never known had Adam not failed the probation.
As for your worry about Hegel–you trouble yourself with too much philosophy I fear. Just because the term originated in a certain context doesn’t mean that the concept hasn’t always existed. With Creation we have the Christian worldview. With the Fall we have alternatives.