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
Zrim, sorry, I meant to include the link. This comment– http://oldlife.org/2012/06/regeneration-intelligence-and-philosophy/#comment-51124
Darryl, I’m guessing Doug can distinguish between theonomy and neo-Calvinism (unlike most people here, it seems).
sdb, I think you need to read my post more carefully (as does Darryl). Didn’t I already say that given the presupposition of an orderly universe that has to be discovered empirically that Christian scientists and non-Christian scientist have most in common? The answer is “yes” if you don’t want to scroll up and read it again (or maybe for the first time). My point is mainly that the truth of science includes the religious truth of there being a Creator and Sustainer. And truth about Creation requires the rightful response of acknowledgment of the true Creator, thankfulness to the true Creator and worship of the true Creator. Now if you want to define science narrowly to mean what Van Til calls knowledge “after a fashion” then we have a simple semantic issue and we will be in agreement. But surely, in light of Darryl’s most recent post on our common psychological disorder we wouldn’t want to call our disagreement mere semantics. Of course, our differences are large enough that we should have separate Reformed/Presbyterian denominations–the neo-Cal version and the 2K version.
Darryl, I pay plenty of attention to Peter and have already talked about that. The Creation is purged and renewed by these fires, not completely destroyed and made again from scratch. The old age and the effects of since are destroyed.
But, I’ll take you up on your challenge to study Colossians 1 more carefully. It’s a fantastic passage even if I come out on your side after studying more carefully. Can’t help but be edifying. Anyone else I should read besides Calvin?
Terry, but Jon is closer to you on epistemology and not a theonomist like Doug is politically. So much for your duck.
Terry, on Col. 1, I suspect that everyone before Kuyper interpreted the passage in less thisworldly fashion. Try Matthew Henry.
Darryl, I’ll look at Wolters again with this question in mind because I agree that had Adam passed the probation there would have been some sort of eschatological transition similar to what we expect at the Parousia.
My first suspicion however, is that you are gleaning all of the book’s content from the title.
Terry, so is your point that true science goes from knowledge of creation to worship of creator and doesn’t stop with mere knowledge of creation’s stuff? That’s fine and I understand it. But as you well know, that’s now how the world of scholarship defines science and that world, for all of its problems and pride, produces some pretty remarkable stuff (including this machine I am now using and the supporting apparatus of the blog). My point is that none of us lives all of life in the “true” or whole way that you describe true science. And in fact, none of us can because we are finite and some of us aren’t even inclined to philosophical (wholistic) categories. What I see neo-Cals doing is an intellectual version of pieties where you as a true Christian have to wear your faith not only on your sleeve but also on your mind. Mind you, I see the value of philosophical and wholistic schemes in limited doses. But the appeal to the antithesis is never limited. It groups all people and their entire beings according to faith or unbelief. I just don’t see that as a very productive way of operating either in the academy or the public square. But I do see how it inspires the faithful and makes them feel more important than their beleaguered status allows.
Terry, reserve some of your suspicion for Wolters. And look for this — his narrative goes from creation, to fall, to redemption. He doesn’t include consummation, which if you read VanDrunen’s chapters on the Dutch tradition is revealing because the Dutch have a habit (post Kuyper) of collapsing everything (creation and consummation) into redemption.
(Terry, the link doesn’t work. Try just cutting/pasting.)
Zrim, I’ll try to be nicer
It seems unrealistic (to me) that you would expect you’re children to be mature enough to withstand being taught ethics that contradict God’s Word. Take for example, in public schools, they teach children that “homosexuality” is a gender issue, just like being born male or female. Why would you allow you’re children to be *molded* by an unbeliever?
After all, the Bible calls mankind *sheep*. Why? It’s not a compliment; we’re stupid, and easily tricked, and can let sin entangle us. Why put you’re covenant child in an environment that contradicts God’s Word before they’re even secure in the faith?
Doug, haven’t you been listening? Because I’m stupid, lazy, cheap, and unprincipled.
Zrim, okay. I’ll try again…You wrote:
Sounds like worldview to me.
Terry, no, it’s a theology. Do the means of grace really flow from a worldview?
Darryl, I’ll look at DVD again as well, but my first reaction is to say that it’s picking up on the Biblical language of renewal (rather than re-creation). So we might write: Creation, Fall, Redemption, Renewal (Renewal is to be preferred to the sometimes used Restoration because it can include an eschatological enhancement.) I also see: Creation, Fall, Redemption, Consummation. If Consummation goes beyond mere Restoration, then I think we can easily get our eschatological enhancement. Thus, Wolters’ “Regained” includes “Consummation” rather than mere “Restoration”. I may also write Al Wolters and ask him directly. I don’t have a copy of Spykman’s Systematic Theology but I would suspect that he engages this point.
Let me say that I agree with you that if the Dutch theologians are talking mere Restoration then it falls short. I don’t particularly remember that being a deficiency in Ridderbos or Berkhouwer. I’ve not read enough Bavink since much has just only recently come out in English translation.
I do admit to having had a few conversations with Calvin College folks and with broader evangelicals who aren’t nearly as wedded as we Presbyterians (yes, I still count myself as one) are to the Covenant of Works, the notion of an eschaton following Adam’s probation. I get the impression that they think the probation was indefinite and that Adam would have always been in this state of being able to sin. I wonder if they think that about our state in glory.
Darryl, I think you capture what I’m saying
and I agree that that’s not how science is commonly practiced (although it’s clear that sometimes a Naturalistic philosophy slips in between the lines and perhaps not so in-between-the-lines in cases like Richard Dawkins). No doubt it’s a form of piety…but there is a place for piety (you once listed several pieties that you perform: family devotions, ordering 2-7 so you can observe the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath, weekly worship, etc.).
Personally, I think that it’s one of the things that Christian academics should do to varying degree. Granted, meta-thinking about your discipline is a discipline in itself and can take you away from other pursuits. In part I attribute my not getting tenure at Calvin College to my spending more time on the Creation/evolution debate and the controversy in the OPC than on my protein folding research. This blog functions as a similar distraction on some days like today when I should be getting to compiling the new protein dynamics software that we just purchased.
Zrim, I’m talking about your indoctrination of 2k theology. That’s what I don’t get about you guys. It’s not that you don’t have a worldview, you just have a different worldview than neo-Calvinists. The way you apply Christian theology to life in general gives a worldview.
Of course, the 2k and the neo-Cal worldview have a lot in common. Really! View of God, humans, revelation, sin, Christ, etc. Just a few differences which we accentuate (perhaps in a bad-mannered way) on the implications for life in this world and aspects of eschatology.
Terry, if you want to wrangle over a word, fine, it’s a (2k) worldview. But the larger point really is that there is more than a polite, even negligible, difference between 2k and neo-Calvinism. And from where I sit (which was the last 15 years in the culturalist CRC), “worldview” is the language you guys use which is function of esteeming philosophy over doctrine, culture over confession, curriculum over catechism, and theorizing the faith over simply confessing and practicing the faith. When you say “worldview” with that meaning, I take exception.
Zrim, curious…I’ve never meant that.
Reformed philosophy flows out of Reformed doctrine. Cultural activity flows out of confession, “Curriculum” (whatever you’re talking about) includes and build upon catechism, 24/7/365–all of life is “practicing the faith”.
Yes, Terry, I know the all-of-life drill. But you’ve already put your finger on it up above somewhere when you observed that the differences turn on an institutional (2k) versus an organic view of church (neo-Cal). What arises from such a taxonomy is that 2k wonders if all-of-lifery is basically a function of Reformed narcissism: I am Reformed, I think X, therefore X is Reformed. “Reformed philosophy,” then, flows out of the organic church’s own mind, not Reformed confession, which flows from the Bible. The latter is infallibly inspired, the former, not so much.
Wow, Terry got Zrim to admit he has a worldview! I failed to do that free repeated effort. Who’s next, DGH?!
Zrim, you misread what I wrote earlier. It’s not either/or. It’s both/and. Believers are members of the institutional church which operates to do the limited things the institutional church does under the authority of its officers and assemblies: preaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments, church discipline. I agree whole-heartedly with that.
But believers are also in the world in their vocations, 24/7/365. This is “church” as organism. I’m not sure I really like the designation of that as “church” because it’s confusing and tends toward equivocation, but it’s got a history. (Anyone here read R.B. Kuiper’s The Glorious Body of Christ?) (I used to distinguish between church and kingdom, but with you 2k folks church and kingdom are identical.) Even in the CRC there is acknowledgement (weakly) that the church shouldn’t do some stuff. (See my “Thoughts on Synod 2012″ at http://grayt2.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/thoughts-on-synod-2012/ ) What churches do through its officers and assemblies is sphere sovereignty limited. However, individual believers and groups of believers function in other spheres. It’s not either/or. It’s both in each one’s respective place. I keep sensing that you always think in terms of institutional church (as in your “bring your dog to church” example). But believers function as believers in all of life not just in the institutional church.
Jon, Darryl did say on June 26 at about 3:17pm
I think that might be as much as we can expect.
Zrim, are you a Christian 24/7/365–all of life? I think so. You practice your faith the same way I do.
Terry, but is the kingdom both/and? Is the church as organism as responsible for kingdom work as the keys of the kingdom or the sacraments? This is where both-and rhetoric does not help and why church as organism can bleed into fuzzy notions of redeeming television or plumbing. And just so you have this straight, 2k did not invent church as kingdom. It is right there in the confession you once subscribed (and everywhere implicitly that Reformed Protestants explained the keys of the kingdom).
Darryl, church as institution is responsible for the keys of the kingdom and the sacraments. No quarrel there. Those determined by church officers to be believers function in the world in their vocations–that’s church as organism. I don’t see where there has to be any confusion. The institutional church does its sphere limited work and believers work in all of the other spheres.
Terry,
You’re right. I forgot about that reference.
Terry;
But believers function as believers in all of life not just in the institutional church.
Sean;
And they either do it well or poorly or otherwise, according to creational standards,(NL, common grace categories of temporal life) in the objective while subjectively their ambition is; “unto the glory of God”. These “w-w” attempts at objective differentiation is so much wish-fulfillment, it doesn’t exist. Christian’s do creation well, poorly and otherwise just like the unregenerate do it well, poorly or otherwise, in the objective. The ‘organic’ distinction is one of sanctified ambition(subjective), not objective accomplishment.
Terry, despite the ostensible agreements with other worldview advocates, your conclusions regarding creation and scientific methodology — assuming you reject intelligent design as scientific — would make it very hard for you to teach in most worldview academies, if not on the verge of church discipline. Of course, I’m not saying anything you don’t already know. But given the insistence on the Christian worldview leading to the Christian view of science, how do you explain this dichotomy within neocalvinism? And how do you determine who wins?
Terry, it’s not that 2k has a problem with the idea of the organic church. To pick up on Sean’s point, it’s the overestimation of just what it can do. Neos talk as if just because the Spirit indwells believers have some sort of leg up in common endeavor. That just doesn’t resonate with actual experience. But leg uppery is legit, and the institutional emphasis gives believers a legit way of realizing it: only the Spirit indwelt can be raised into the heavenlies each Lord’s Day in ways unbelievers can’t–and isn’t being so raised the precise point of faith? Here is where the antithesis makes sense. Sure, wheat and tares are mixed each Lord’s Day, but that makes more sense then the narcissistic idea that believers can do philosophy (and everything else pertaining to creation) better than unbelievers the other six.
Terry G.said:
“Personally, I think that it’s one of the things that Christian academics should do to varying degree. Granted, meta-thinking about your discipline is a discipline in itself and can take you away from other pursuits. In part I attribute my not getting tenure at Calvin College to my spending more time on the Creation/evolution debate and the controversy in the OPC than on my protein folding research. This blog functions as a similar distraction on some days like today when I should be getting to compiling the new protein dynamics software that we just purchased.”
John Y says: that is not very progressively sanctified of you Terry, but I got a kick out of the candor
Why is it that discussions of regeneration on Calvinist web sites usually end up in discussions of culture and education. There has to be some quirk or connection in Calvinist soteriology to regaining and redeeming culture. I am pretty sure Van Drunen addressed this issue in a not so indepth way in his book NATURAL LAW AND THE TWO KINGDOMS. Can anyone comment further on that?
Also, why all the battle metaphors with unbelievers? I thought Christians were supposed to bare the burden of afflictions from unbelievers when they reject the Gospel and remain enemies of the cross of Christ; not overtake the culture that is passing away. I guess that is the difference between a amillenial and postmillenial eschatology.
Zrim,
Let’s just zero in on one thing you said for a minute:
“Sure, wheat and tares are mixed each Lord’s Day, but that makes more sense then the narcissistic idea that believers can do philosophy (and everything else pertaining to creation) better than unbelievers the other six.”
Are you really ready to defend the statement that unbelievers can do philosophy as well as believers? Let’s break down the implications of your assertion:
Metaphysics: physicalism is equally true as supernaturalism.
Epistemology: autonomous epistemologies, such as rationalism and empiricism, are equally true as revelationalism.
Ethics: might makes right is equally true as “Thus sayeth the Lord.”
Please defend the above implications. Please be specific and detailed. Thanks
Terry, but you dodged WCF on the visible church as the kingdom of Christ. I suspect that this is where lots of confusion and evasion lies and sorry but the neo-Cals introduced it.
John Y.: my hunch is the dominance of neo-Calvinism in twentieth century Reformed Protestantism. Sanctification, education, and culture generally go together in the neo-Cal mind, and it may have had a point in 1890s Netherlands. But the problem that 2kers face is that we have discovered a Calvinism prior to neo-Calvinism and the neo-Cals, who assumed theirs is the most consistent most philosophical most active version, are shocked, just shocked, to hear that someone things a better and more conservative brand of Calvinism exists.
There are different ideas of worldview being batted around, and I think the difference leads to confusion.
1. Worldview = people tend to have ideas that more or less hang together.
2. Christian worldview as endeavoring to apply biblical ethics and faith extensively.
3. Christian worldview includes epistemological reflection borne of Kant’s Copernican Revolution, an endeavor to “claim every square inch,” an emphasis on an intellectual antithesis between believers and nonbelievers, and a tendency to promulate “the” Christian position in matters cultural and academic.
a. of the Evangelical/Baptisic type.
b. of the Kuyperian/Reformed type.
I’m not trying to pontificate here, but it’s hard to butt into conversations at this point. I’m sometimes seeing worldview defended as if it’s #1, but no one really denies that. Then a worldviewist on his high horse sometimes acts as if #2 is all the argument is about. But the argument is really about #3.
Jon, and you are really prepared to say that believers do philosophy better than unbelievers? Does that include me? Or if I decline philosophy, I’m unregenerate? Careful. You may start sounding like Gilbert Tennent, the Danger of Unconverted Philosophers.
For the record, aside from Wolterstorff and Aquinas, which Christian philosophers do philosophers study?
Jon, have you missed Noe’s line of reasoning? If so, you’re welcome (sheesh, so many favors and so much love unrequited):
http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=302&cur_iss=Y
But my point was that, instead of earth, only Christians can do heaven categorically, absolutely, and unequivocally better than unbelievers–most notably 52 Lord’s Days a year (as opposed to the immodest 24/7/365 claims of neos). Even dim and under-tutored ones. The implications of that are staggering if you’d ever care to contemplate them. What do you think it means to say that God has chosen the foolish things to confound the wise?
“Are you really ready to defend the statement that unbelievers can do philosophy as well as believers?”
Jon, since you talk of doing philsophy the answer is “yes, absolutely.” If I was presented a paper with “correct” positions that is weak in argumentation and fails to understand what it argues against, I would have to give it a poor mark. On the other hand an “incorrect” paper that is rigorously analytical, well-argued, and understands what it argues against would get a high mark.
“Epistemology: autonomous epistemologies, such as rationalism and empiricism, are equally true as revelationalism.”
But Jon, in worldview epistemolgy the subject imposes order on what may be out there but can’t really be sure if it’s out there because he is so commited to his worldview. Are you a worldviewist or not?
D. G. Hart: Jon, and you are really prepared to say that believers do philosophy better than unbelievers? Does that include me? Or if I decline philosophy, I’m unregenerate? Careful. You may start sounding like Gilbert Tennent, the Danger of Unconverted Philosophers.
RS: Yes, but there is a danger from unconverted ministers. We are also specifically told by Paul to “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Col 2:8). So there may be some danger from unconverted philosphers.
D.G. Hart: For the record, aside from Wolterstorff and Aquinas, which Christian philosophers do philosophers study?
RS: Alvin Plantinga, Louis Pojman, Malebranche, Thomas Reid, Paschal, Kierkegaard, and Jonathan Edwards (who also wrote a great work on the Religous Affections).
Sean and Zrim, did I ever say that Chistians do their disciplines “better” than non-Christians? This was the claim of Darryl’s original post (that neo-Cals claim this) and I think I accused him of being under the influence of a mind altering drug for saying so. I don’t think I’ve said such a thing and I don’t think that’s what the epistemological claim is. What I am saying is that because the believer has the fundamental orientation right (due to Revelation and Regeneration) and responds faithfully in thanksgiving, worship, and obedience, he/she is closer to the Truth in his/her thinking than the unbeliever. This is why I think Jon is fundamentally correct in saying what he said about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, despite the possibility that in a technical philosophical paper, he/she might committ errors. Many of you know that I am a theistic evolutionist (or an evolutionary creationist) and think that Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design are both flawed science. In terms of technical science Richard Dawkins has it much more together than Duane Gish or Bill Dembski. But, Gish and Dembski are closer to the Truth in their thinking about Creation because they acknowledge, based on their Christian faith, the Creator and Richard Dawkins is an idolator. Gish and Dembski’s starting point when thinking about the world is rooted in truths that come by revelation and regeneration. This is what we neo-Calvinists mean when we say “life is religion” and “the myth of neutrality” and “every square inch” under Christ’s Lordship. It has very little to do with “after a fashion” technicalities. Unbelievers, by virtue of common grace, (as indicated in the original Kuyper quote) are often very good at what they do, but even the grace- and image of God-endowed efforts may be “of good use” but “because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith; nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word; nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God” (WCF, XVI, 7). I do not hesitate to make the religious/moral claim as part of my epistemological claim.
John, for what it’s worth I got my program compiled in spite of my high horse spewing on Darryl’s blog today. Perhaps it was the result of all the prayers uttered on my behalf by Old Lifers who read my confession and prayed for my work.
Darryl, indeed I avoided the use of the word “kingdom”. As I’ve said before I don’t have any qualms about calling the church the kingdom. The members of the church are the citizens of the kingdom. Christ rules as Kng over the church and over His citizens. So I have no issue with what WCF affirms.
You, however, take that affirmation and say that the kingdom is limited to the church. I think otherwise. The kingdom is the realm over which Christ is King. That would be all of heaven and earth. That would be over members of the church and citizens of the kingdom as they serve their King in all of life, 24/7/365. Citizens of the kingdom (members of the church) acknowledge Christ’s kingly rule. Period. They are ultimately subject to him alone and they bear witness to his kingship to all. The earth is the Lord’s (not just the Christian people of the earth). Even rebel sinners are called to obey him as King, and they will bow the knee in faith or will be judged and condemned for their disobedience. Either way he is king over them.
Of course, the church expresses the kingdom most purely. The church is governed by Christ’s revealed Word. But don’t forget where we are heading–”the kingdom of this world shall become the kingdom of our God and of His Christ and he shall reign forever and ever” and Christ teaches us to pray for that kingdom to come on earth as it is in heaven.
Zrim, don’t forget to mention the response to Noe in Ordained Servant. We mustn’t give the impression that this is the majority position in the OPC. It will take a long time to undue the influence of Cornelius Van Til.
http://www.opc.org/os.html?article_id=311&cur_iss=Y
Terrry, first of all I’m a bit frosted at you for making me set up a separate category of worldview to accomodate your view over against what tend to come out of baptistic circles these days. I’ll even call yours a “higher” view. But I would appreciate clarification on something. You say
” In terms of technical science Richard Dawkins has it much more together than Duane Gish or Bill Dembski. But, Gish and Dembski are closer to the Truth in their thinking about Creation because they acknowledge, based on their Christian faith, the Creator and Richard Dawkins is an idolator.”
Now, this strikes me as a very modest statement and not terribly worldviewish. Gish and Dembski have are closer to a Big Truth but have no advantage in their academic discipline. Kumbaya, but is that all you are arguing for? And why wouldn’t you say the Holy Spirit enables them that far?
Richard, you say
Alvin Plantinga, Louis Pojman, Malebranche, Thomas Reid, Paschal, Kierkegaard, and Jonathan Edwards (who also wrote a great work on the Religous Affections).
I haven’t done a recent survey of undergraduate philsophy curricula, but the only one of those men likely to be included at any given institution is Kierkegaard, and he is the butt of worldview critiques such as Schaeffer’s. Certainly Plantinga has the skill set to be in The League (sorry, I’ve been distracted by the NBA draft), but I doubt there are many classes on Reformed Epistemology at State University.
Richard, Edwards was a philosopher? Wow!
BTW, I believe Paul was writing not a general missive to believers but to a specific church or set of congregations. In which case, not wanting philosophers to lead the church is smart instruction. Over at university, an unregenerate philosopher is a different matter (that is, unless you think believers should be presiding over all activities — the theonomist option).
Terry, your version of the kingdom is standard neo-Calvinist fare. It also ignores the older Reformed distinction, exposited well by VanDrunen, of the redemptive and creational aspects of Christ’s rule. 2kers have no trouble saying Christ is king over all things. But then the my-kingdom-is-not-of-this-world needs to kick in. Which is why the Confession can say that Christ’s kingdom is the visible church and why older Calvinists never talked about kingdom work other than word, sacrament, and discipline.
In my estimation this is the crucial debate between neo’s and 2kers. And it would help if neo’s could acknowledge how historically derived their construction of the kingdom is. When you’re trying to Christianize a nation, and in the Netherlands, you might actually want a cosmic rationale. Funny how that feeds the Religious Right.
Mikelmann, if you had a Xian w-w, you wouldn’t waste your time on the NBA. (Which team do the folks in Iowa follow, Minnesota, OK, or Chicago? And why can’t Burlington get a franchise?)
Richard, if there is no danger from unconverted ministers how can there be from unconverted philosophers? But to back up a bit, the Reformed confess that the state of the minister does not impact the efficacy of the Word and sacraments he administers. And so here is another glaring difference between the confessionalists and the epistemologists: the former look to the foolish things God has ordained, the latter to the wiser things the world esteems.
And so it’s little wonder to me that the experientialists join up with the epistemologists here in pushing back on the confessionalists. Whether it’s the intellect or the affections, the sacraments and power of God are given lower esteem.
Terry, I invoke Sean’s previous point about moving targets. From one side of the mouth, you want to say that we don’t do earth better. From the other, you claim “that because the believer has the fundamental orientation right (due to Revelation and Regeneration) and responds faithfully in thanksgiving, worship, and obedience, he/she is closer to the Truth in his/her thinking than the unbeliever.” It seems fairly clear that the implication of the latter is that believers do earth better than unbelievers. How can we be closer to truth and yet not be superior in our thinking?
The necessary distinctions, again, are creation and redemption. Neos tend to be very sloppy here and give the impression that because we are closer to eternal truth we are superior in our temporal thinking. But my point remains about heaven and how our confession is always superior to the unbeliever’s. The sloppiness of neos makes it seem like they find this ho-hum.