The reviewer of Westminster California’s Evangelium has repeatedly in different online exchanges accused the two-kingdoms proponents of denying Article 36 of the Belgic Confession where it teaches that the magistrate has the God-ordained duty to promote the true religion and punish idolaters and blasphemers. It says: “And the government’s task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in his Word.†(Often not mentioned by such appeals to Article 36 are the revisions that Dutch Reformed communions in the United States made to this part of the Confession. See postscript below.)
What is striking for all good Kuyperians is that Abraham Kuyper himself rejected the original language of Article 36 and refused to let anyone claim he was less of a Reformed Protestant for doing so. In the early 1880s Kuyper wrote a pamphlet on the reformation of the church that the editors of the Standard Bearer, the denominational magazine of the Protestant Reformed Church, translated and published over many issues during the 1980s. (Thanks to John Halsey Wood for reminding me of this resource.) Under the heading of “Concerning Reformation and the Magistrate,†Kuyper wrote the following:
We oppose this Confession out of complete conviction, prepared to bear the consequences of our convictions, even when we will be denounced and mocked on that account as unReformed.
We would rather be considered not Reformed and insist that men ought not to kill heretics, than that we are left with the Reformed name as the prize for assisting in the shedding of the blood of heretics.
It is our conviction: 1) that the examples which are found in the Old Testament are of no force for us because the infallible indication of what was or was not heretical which was present at that time is now lacking.
2) That the Lord and the Apostles never called upon the help of the magistrate to kill with the sword the one who deviated from the truth. Even in connection with such horrible heretics as defiled the congregation in Corinth, Paul mentions nothing of this idea. And it cannot be concluded from any particular word in the New Testament, that in the days when particular revelation should cease, that the rooting out of heretics with the sword is the obligation of magistrates.
3) That our fathers have not developed this monstrous proposition out of principle, but have taken it over from Romish practice.
4) That the acceptance and carrying out of this principle almost always has returned upon the heads of non-heretics and not the truth but heresy has been honored by the magistrate.
5) That this proposition opposes the Spirit and the Christian faith.
6) That this proposition supposed that the magistrate is in a position to judge the difference between truth and heresy, an office of grace which, as appears from the history of eighteen centuries, is not granted by the Holy Spirit, but is withheld.
We do not at all hide the fact that we disagree with Calvin, our Confessions, and our Reformed theologians.
Granted, the appeal to Kuyper here may look a tad inconsistent because of regular objections to the idea of transformationalism that Kuyper himself apparently launched. At the same time, this quotation does show that even in the efforts to claim Christ’s lordship over every square inch, Kuyper recognized limits to the logic of that sovereignty, limits that many modern-day Kuyperians seem incapable of making in order to avoid the shoals of theonomy.
Postscript: Latter day Kuyperians also recognized the limits of Christ’s lordship when they attached notations to the Belgic Confession like this one found in both the Christian Reformed Church and the United Reformed Churches of North America (it follows the assertion that the magistrate is not only responsible for the “welfare of the civil state, but also to protect the sacred ministryâ€:
The Christian Reformed Church Synod of 1910, recognizing the unbiblical teaching, contained in this sentence, concerning the freedom of religion and concerning the duty of the state to suppress false religion, saw fit to add an explanatory footnote. The Christian Reformed Church Synod of 1938, agreeing with the Christian Reformed Church Synod of 1910 as to the unbiblical character of the teaching referred to, but recognizing a conflict between the objectionable clauses in the Article and its footnote, decided to eliminate the footnote and to make the change in the text of the Article which appears above, corresponding to the change adopted in 1905 by the General Synod of the “Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland.†(See Christian Reformed Church Acts of Synod, 1910, pp.9,104-105; also Christian Reformed Church Acts of Synod, 1938, p. 17.). The Christian Reformed Church Synod of 1958 approved the following substitute statement which has been referred to other Reformed Churches accepting the Belgic Confession as their creed for evaluation and reaction: “And being called in this manner to contribute to the advancement of a society that is pleasing to God, the civil rulers have the task, in subjection to the law of God, while completely refraining from every tendency toward exercising absolute authority, and while functioning in the sphere entrusted to them and with the means belonging to them, to remove every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to every aspect of divine worship, in order that the Word of God may have free course, the kingdom of Jesus Christ may make progress, and every anti-christian power may be resisted.â€
Old Life 
1. Dr. Hart, you have a keen mind but sometimes you let yourself get the better of yourself. In other words, why make it personal concerning Mr. VM? Maybe he has made it personal with you though I’m sure you’ve heard of “tu quoque.†Perhaps it would be better to stick to the ideas of Kuyperianism or theonomy instead, the two of which, I would stress, are not one and the same, even as you demonstrate in this post. The fact that you don’t like Mr. VM ought to be irrelevant; perhaps even corrected.
2. You wrote: “… Kuyper recognized limits to the logic of that sovereignty …†But aren’t those limits part of that logic itself? In other words, do you see Kuyper as being inconsistent with himself here, or is it that some of his self-proclaimed followers do not understand him correctly? Or something else? Perhaps you might agree that Kuyper is not entirely what you originally thought him to be. Maybe people can be quite edified by reading him, n’est-ce pas? (Personal confession: I’ve only read three of his books).
3. You wrote: “Latter day Kuyperians also recognized the limits of Christ’s lordship…†What limits? In other words, what your basis for comparison? Christ’s lordship in the new heaven and earth to come? Israel’s OT theocracy or monarchy? I guess what I’m saying is that if we understand Christ’s reign as it truly is in this NT/last days era, then there are no limits to his authority unless we think he could hypothetically have more authority then he does now. He has all authority in heaven and earth as I know you’d say Amen to this. Isn’t the disagreement over how this authority is exercised and not over the extent/scope of this authority which is clearly proclaimed in Matt. 28:18? I guess my point is that the language of “limits†on Christ’s authority is not at all helpful. Rather we should be talking about the manner or exercise of this authority. No wonder people get emotionally charged when you write about “the reduced character of Christ’s sovereignty in the Christian era†(p. 230 of your book). Such language is not helpful and will have to die the death of a thousand qualifications, in which case it’s better not to speak that way. Perhaps you’ll want to print a retraction on that.
4. Have you done that interview series thing with Camden Bucey yet? When is that?
Whoops, sorry, don’t mean to keep you too busy. Regards.
LikeLike
Darryl, I appreciate you positively mentioning Kuyper’s views.
As I have mentioned before, in the third and last part of Kuyper’s third Lecture on Calvinism (Politics), he states:
” The difficulty lies in the fact that an article of our old Calvinistic Confession of Faith entrusts to the government the task ‘of defending against and of extirpating every form of idolatry and false religion and to protect the sacred service of the Church.’…
The accusation is therefore a natural one that, by choosing in favor of liberty of religion, we do not pick up the gauntlet for Calvinism, but that we directly oppose it.
In order to shield myself from this undesirable suspicion, I advance the rule –that a system is not known in what it has in common with other preceding systems; but that it is distinguished by that in which it differs from those preceding systems.
The duty of the government to extirpate every form of false religion and idolatry was not a find of Calvinism, but dates from Constantine the Great, and was the reaction against the horrible persecutions which his pagan predecessors on the imperial throne had inflicted upon [Christians]. ”
Kuyper repeats twice more that “we must not seek the true Calvinistic characteristic in what, for a time, it has retained of the old system, but rather in that, which, new and fresh, has sprung up from its own root,” namely, (political) liberty of conscience in faith and worship. (And he goes on to make an interesting argument concerning how liberty of conscience necessitates the abandonment of a “unitary” understanding of the visible Church).
This view of the relation of Church and State is truly a sin qua non of Kuyperianism. To deny it is not to be neocalvinist in the Kuyperian sense. I recommend my website to your readers:
http://kuyperian.blogspot.com/
I also appreciate Jonah’s 2nd & 3rd questions. Your statements are very telling.
You seem to think that a recognition of sphere sovereignty –multiple differentiated, and thereby limited, kinds of responsibility (including that of the church)– somehow implies a limit of Christ’s sovereignty. Exceedingly bizarre!
LikeLike
Darryl, do you think Belgic 36 is correct to say that the government’s task “extends also to upholding the sacred ministry” in a general, abstract way, but simply not by “removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ” etc.? Just looking for clarification.
LikeLike
Jonah, I feel like you are reading me with your own biases again. I didn’t say anything personal about the person in question. I only pointed out that he regularly denies the Reformed credentials of those who refuse to affirm the original article 36 of Belgic. Now whether he has personal reasons for doing this is something I do not know. But I do think it is amazingly hypocritical to make this argument against 2k people when the person in question is in a communion that doesn’t affirm the original art. 36, and when he seems to invoke the specter of Kuyper against 2k people when he should really be haunted by that ghost.
As far as Kuyper goes, I don’t see him inconsistent on this question. What I do see as inconsistent is an appeal to Kuyper and his notion of Christ’s Lordship against the 2k position, especially on the civil magistrate — hence, “Do Kuyperians listen to Kuyper”?
You also seem to think that my talk of limits on Christ’s lordship scares people. Well, first of all, I was careful to say the limits of the logic. I have seen way too many people — including your own version of Christian plumbing — understand Christ’s lordship to imply logically that a Christian norm must be in place. I have also experienced way too many bad readings of my own position as if I deny Christ’s lordship when I don’t insist on Chrisian norms outside the church, say, when I don’t affirm that Christian schools are necessary. I believe that Christ is lord all the time, and that he delegates his authority to all sorts of folks and institutions, from the elders at my own congregation to the former ruler of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. But it seems to me that many Kuyperians place limits on Christ’s lordship when they refuse to acknowledge Christ is in control even when secularism, evangelicalism, feminism, or capitalism reigns.
So you may think the language of limits is unhelpful, but Kuyperians failing to qualify the nature of Christ’s rule is even less constructive.
Camden has conducted the first round of interviews but I am not sure when they will air.
LikeLike
Baus, Hello! What is bizarre is the idea that Christ’s lordship is only evident in Christian schools, Christian laws, or when things go well for Christians. This is the position of your bedfellows in the Kuyperian universe. I know, I know, this isn’t the pure variety of the Free University circa 1955. But please don’t tell me my understanding is strange when the folks who traffic in world and life viewism don’t seem to have the slightest clue about how to apply sphere sovereignty to the modern situation, but instead argue against 2k in a 1k fashion that leads to theonomy. Why don’t you establish a Kuyperian police force and round up all the world view criminals.
LikeLike
Sebastian, I think it is hard to squeeze Art. 36 (in the original) out of Romans 13. The state should encourage virtue (of a public kind, not the genuine article) and punish evil. I’m open to seeing how that applies to the sacred ministry. But it certainly wasn’t a reality of the state in Paul’s day. And I think you only can find that role for the state by appealing to the OT political order.
LikeLike
Sebastian’s question gets at a fundamental point that Darryl ignores in his post here, i.e., that my discussion with him on Belgic 36 concerned the article, *as revised*, in its current formulation. In other words, the issue of “removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship” was not in view. Rather, one key issue is the role of the Bible as normative for the magistrate and setting the parameters for the Christian’s submission to the magistrate.
So Darryl’s citing Kuyper’s objection to the original Belgic language is an unsurprising distraction and non-sequiter.
Darryl also omits reference to our further discussion on the topic, but readers here could profit from it, paying particular attention to comments #323, 329, 334, 339, 411, and 421:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/why-theonomy-is-biblically-theologically-wrong/
LikeLike
It is not a non-sequiter because you fail, and have repeatedly failed, to see that if you have a magistrate that promotes the sacred ministry he must also prohibit idolatry and blasphemy. That means, if the president is going to promote the Reformed churches, he’s also going to have to shut down the Mormons and the Roman Catholics. You may not like the publicity that would surround opposition to Mormons and Roman Catholics. But if you’re going to support the state’s enforcing the sixth commandment, how do you then say, “oh, but it’s okay if you ignore commandments 1 through 4.”
Your selective reading of the commandments and its binding qualities upon the magistrate looks a lot like a case of trying to show up your opponents without realizing the corner in which your unattractive posturing has backed you.
So Mark, if the ten commandments are binding on the magistrate, how do you have Mormons or Roman Catholics still in the land?
LikeLike
Darryl, I can do nothing more to help you see that your argument is not with me, but with the language of the Belgic, even in its revised formulation.
LikeLike
So was Kuyper’s. You disagree with Kuyper. Thanks for the clarification.
LikeLike
Feel free to keep heaping up more proof of your failure to fairly represent my position relative to Kuyper or the revised Belgic.
LikeLike
Mark, Thanks. I will. But it is a simple question. You think the magistrate has a duty to uphold the sacred ministry. Kuyper says the magistrate doesn’t have the competency to judge spiritual truth. “this proposition supposed that the magistrate is in a position to judge the difference between truth and heresy, an office of grace which, as appears from the history of eighteen centuries, is not granted by the Holy Spirit, but is withheld.” So how exactly do you agree with Kuyper, or contend that the magistrate can support the Christian ministry? How can the magistrate tell what is Christian, orthodox, or even Reformed?
But if like Dr. K., you position involves simply that the magistrate should oppose abortion, fine. I also think that. But stopping abortion is a practice that is not exclusive to Christians or the sacred ministry.
I do believe, Mark, that your issue is not with 2k but the confusion in your own position.
LikeLike
dgh wrote: “I have also experienced way too many bad readings of my own position…”
Allow me to say this with the most respect I can muster: Isn’t it possible that the reason for so many bad readings of your position isn’t only the fault of those reading or listening to you but also partly your fault?
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying I’m an angel. But why, for example, should we talk about “the reduced character of Christ’s sovereignty in the Christian era” when Jesus says he’s sovereign over heaven and earth? That way of speaking does not compute. This is partly why I prefer a more Kuyperian way of looking at these things. And in this blog post you point out an excellent example from Kuyper of how to understand the magistrate’s authority.
dgh: “I have seen way too many people — including your own version of Christian plumbing — understand Christ’s lordship to imply logically that a Christian norm must be in place.”
But the laws of logic, nature, and morality are all a reflection or description of God’s character, and therefore are a prescription for us as those created in His image.
LikeLike
So it comes down to what you prefer? I may not be the best communicator, though I also think that somewhere in our exchanges you admit to not having read A Secular Faith. I have also written on the spirituality of the church more than your Dr. K. has written on the Lordship of Christ. Could it be that no matter what I write you have a Corinthian preference — that is, you prefer to see Christ’s sovereignty in visible ways just like the Israelites and the Corinthians did? Could it be that you don’t want a form of Christ’s rule that is spiritual, inviible, routine, and ordinary? Could it be that if you can’t see it visibly displayed, then you don’t think it exists?
And do you really mean to say that logic and nature are reflections of God’s incommunicable attributes (infinite, eternal, unchangeable)? Are you also saying that plumbing is a reflection of God’s incommunicable attributes? I doubt it. But why would you say something like this unless you want the realities of the consummation now, that is, you seem to want today the eternal significane of our existence that will one day be true. In that case, could it be that you are impatient with God, and have a standard for his rule and authority that is finally a reflection of your preference?
For what it’s worth, when someone talks about Christ’s rule being reduced in this era, it means that it is spiritual not political, invisible not visible. If you were familiar with the categories of Christ’s Lordship that Reformed Christians have used since Calvin — that Christ’ rule is spiritual — you would not be taken aback. But if you think that Christ’s rule must be seen and noticeable in plumbing, then you may be guilty of the Corinthian problem — professing a theology of glory.
So really, this stuff from Dr. K. about two-kingdom theology capitulating to secular thought and society is nonsense. Two kingdom theology may be wrong, but let’s get the motivation right. It’s proponents are trying to be faithful to Scripture, not trying to play some power game about Reformed bragging rights.
LikeLike
But why, for example, should we talk about “the reduced character of Christ’s sovereignty in the Christian era†when Jesus says he’s sovereign over heaven and earth? That way of speaking does not compute.
To my mind, that it doesn’t compute says volumes more about our era than the writer’s biblical grasp of God’s sovereignty. Which is to say, we are presently moving from a Constantinian era to a post-Christian era, and old habits do indeed die hard, which can be a good thing. But not so much when that habit is to presume a friendly posture between the powers of earth and those of heaven, something of which the NT knows nothing. In fact, it seems to presume an antagonism between them.
Whatever else is being said, it seems to me that the point is also one of jurisdiction. And a basic premise in questions of jurisdiction involves questions of limits. Earthly analogies might help. Sovereigns of all manners (from fathers to school superintendants to presidents to kings) routinely limit themselves in one way or another (well, the better ones at least), but nobody understands this to mean that their inherent power is reduced. It simply means different realms call for different rules and actions.
LikeLike
Baus,
First off thanks for posting the Kuyper info on your website, it has been helpful in understanding him better. I’ve got a couple of questions for you in response:
1. What is the endgame assuming the Kuyperian model and neocalvinists succeed?
2. Is it politically even possible given the pluralistic underpinnings of contemporary western democracies?
3. Assuming a positive Kuyperian endgame, how would this not lead to the oppression of others who conscientiously hold to divergent worldviews?
LikeLike
dgh: “So it comes down to what you prefer?”
*sigh*
dgh: “And do you really mean to say that logic and nature are reflections of God’s incommunicable attributes (infinite, eternal, unchangeable)?”
I’m saying that the laws of nature, the laws of logic, and the laws of morality are a description of who God is (a la Rom. 1:20) and that these laws are a prescription for us. I’d like to get into this more but first…
dgh: “…when someone talks about Christ’s rule being reduced in this era, it means that it is spiritual not political, invisible not visible.”
So why not say “spiritual” and “invisible” instead of “reduced” if that’s what you mean? How does “reduced” square with “spiritual”? How does one infer “reduced” from Matt. 28:18? If you were to talk about Christ’s rule being spiritual instead of reduced then perhaps intelligent people like Dr. Kloosterman might not go around accusing you of capitulating to secular thought (which I would concede is an unfair accusation).
dgh: “If you were familiar with the categories of Christ’s Lordship that Reformed Christians have used since Calvin — that Christ’ rule is spiritual — you would not be taken aback.”
Do these categories include “reduced?” I’m not taken aback by talk of Christ’s rule being spiritual. But how does one who is familiar with the categories of Christ’s Lordship that Reformed Christians have used since Calvin come up with: “the reduced character of Christ’s sovereignty in the Christian era?” I don’t believe that this manner of speaking is communicating what you want it to. I only say this for your benefit.
Also, as it pertains to Christ’s reign, wouldn’t you agree that the spiritual and invisible have an impact or effect on the political and visible? Shall we say that the spiritual is on this side of the distinction here and the political is over there and never shall the two meet?
dgh: “It’s proponents are trying to be faithful to Scripture, not trying to play some power game about Reformed bragging rights.”
Ok, I concede this. And, yes, I still have to read your book. I’ll put it on my Christmas list 🙂 Unless you have a free one for me?!
LikeLike
Jonah, you know, it’s not the word “reduced” that got Dr. K. worked up. It’s the fact that Scott Clark recommended A Secular Faith. That IS personal.
But the reason for using reduced still stands. When Christ claims all authority he’s speaking to a pretty lowly group of followers, a far cry from the glories of David’s reign or Solomon’s palace. I’ll call that reduced.
But how do the words foolish and weak sound to you? Are they as offensive as reduced? Funny, those are the words that Paul uses to describe the preaching of the gospel to those theology of glory Corinthians. Foolish and weak sound pretty reduced to me.
By the way, I have used the word spiritual plenty of times. It’s just that Dr. K. doesn’t want to hear it. He can try to score more points that way. After all, I have written on the doctrine of the spirituality of the church. And the person from whom I learned it was th one to whose memory I dedicated A Secular Faith.
I really think you would do well not to learn about 2k theology from Dr. 1K.
LikeLike
Granted, the appeal to Kuyper here may look a tad inconsistent because of regular objections to the idea of transformationalism that Kuyper himself apparently launched. At the same time, this quotation does show that even in the efforts to claim Christ’s lordship over every square inch, Kuyper recognized limits to the logic of that sovereignty, limits that many modern-day Kuyperians seem incapable of making in order to avoid the shoals of theonomy.
Hope you’re doing well, Dr. Hart.
Of course, your argument threatens to turn itself inside out. If Kuyper himself could reject theonomy and yet be transformationalist, then it follows that many others could also be transformationalist and reject theonomy.
I thought your entire life’s work consisted of proving that anything short of REPT makes the world safe for theonomy? 😉
But seriously, you have previously argued that any whiff of “mixing the spheres” must lead to theonomy. Kuyper’s quote here stands as an obvious counter-example, no?
Grace and peace,
Jeff Cagle
LikeLike
Hm, the “quote” tag doesn’t work. I’ll try “blockquote.”
Can’t speak for Jonah, but since you’ve asked me the same in the past …
Is it actually *wrong* to desire to see Christ’s sovereignty be visible on this side of eternity, in any way, shape, or form?
For example, what would you make of someone who said, “Christ is my spiritual Lord, but my actual behavior — well, His sovereignty isn’t supposed to be actually *visible* in my life”?
I’m betting you’d bust out a verse or two from James on him. Or Romans 6. Or the Sermon on the Mount. Or Corinthians, interestingly.
And what about the Psalms? Don’t they contain an expectation of the Lord’s visible reign? It strikes me as odd that you would be partial to singing Psalms in church, but consider their theology to be inappropriate for our time.
My point is this:
Just as there are at least two kinds of people who want Christ’s rule to be invisible (REPTers and libertines), so also there are at least two kinds of people who want Christ’s rule to be visible (neo-Kuyperians and Corinthianizers).
It’s a category mistake to try to lump all those together as coal in the same stocking.
Jeff Cagle
LikeLike
Jeff, you lost me. How does Kuyper’s quotation suggest a mixing of the spheres?
It could also be that there is Kuyperian transformationalism and there is Kuyper’s transformationalism. In which case, it could be that the post stands — Kuyperians only appeal to Kuyper in the breach.
LikeLike
Jeff, you’ve missed the point. We all have Corinthian souls. We all want Christ’s kingdom to be visible. That is why immanentizing the eschaton makes a lot more sense to more people than amillennialism. It’s not that I want Christ’s kingdom to be invisible. It is that for now in this period of redemptive history, it largely is, though the last time I checked when I gather with my fellow elders for session or presbytery meetings, we are still in our bodies.
So why are you not content with the visible rule of the church (which is spiritual, not political)?
LikeLike
It doesn’t. It suggests — actually, firmly proposes — a rejection of theonomy. Additionally, Kuyper was known to be transformationalist. The rest follows.
Could Kuyper’s transformationalism be different from that of his heirs apparent? Sure. You may recall that some have argued that current two-kingdom proposals are quite different from Calvin’s two-K scheme. 🙂
No, I’m not that dense just yet. 🙂 I agree: we all have Corinthian souls. We *also* all have secularizing souls (“This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of good things laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.””).
I’m just saying, If you’re allowed to be allergic to Corinthianizing tendencies, can’t you let others be allergic to secularizing tendencies, without suspecting them all of being closet Corinthians?
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff, what if a secular faith is the one appropriate for this age of redemptive history? After all, secular is derived from saeclorum, meaning age or period. A secular faith then tries to recognize what the Corinthians couldn’t — the way God works in this time between Christ’s advents. The visibility for which Corinthians seek will happen. But to seek it now is to locate heaven on earth.
LikeLike
Well then, you’ve found the right answer and we’re all done.
What if it’s not? OR, what if a “secular faith” has some merits and some demerits? OR, what if a “secular faith” is a hybrid of Biblical teaching and counter-Biblical Enlightenment thinking? OR, etc…
There’s a lot of possibilities besides “Darryl Hart Bad (or Good), neo-Kuyperians Good (or Bad).”
That’s all I’m trying to say.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff,
One test could be that if New School claims (that eternity has direct and obvious bearing on the temporal order) are true then it would seem that as history either progresses or retreats that the human condition only gets better or worse, respectively. Can you say that’s true? My inner Corinthian does, but my inner Calvinist is really skeptical.
But let’s make it easier. Since all 1K is a variation on prosperity gospel, from trivial to sophisticated, to affirm New School claims means you’ll also have to bless Benny Hinn. He also thinks eternity bears directly and obviously on the temporal condition.
LikeLike
At first, I found your test intriguing. But then I realized it rests on two false premises:
(1) That the New School claims that eternity has “obvious” bearing on the temporal order.
Direct does not imply obvious, of course. You, I, and the estimable dgh all agree that eternity has direct bearing on the Church. And yet the work of the Spirit in the Church is non-obvious. So much so, in fact, that several separate sections of the WCoF are dedicated to this non-obviousness (13.2, 3 and 18.3, 4 for individual members; 24.4, 5 for the church as a whole).
So New Schoolers and other transformationalists need not claim that eternity’s direct bearing on the world is thus obvious (and can be tested by an easy read of the “trend of history.”). One thinks for example of Lorraine Boettner’s postmillennialism: History might get worse while the Church gets better.
(2) Transformationalists are not all New School anyways. Do you think that Kuyper was a 2nd GA kind of a guy?
Hm. This is obviously fallacious. You just don’t see it because it isn’t being applied to you:
“Since all separation-of-church and state people are the same, you must agree with the ACLU on abortion rights.” (Granted … you *have* been on the receiving end of some of this nonsense … but that doesn’t require you to imitate it…)
JRC
LikeLike
But you would say Paul (good), Corinthians (bad), right? That’s what I’m trying to say, and the idea that the spread of democracy, education, wealth, freedom, art is a sign of th ekingdom coming is what a lot of transformers of culture imply. In which case, they haven’t read their Bibles, either Paul to the Corinthians or Ecclesiastes. (I’ll say it again, Ecclesiastes has to be the transformationalists “epistle of straw.”)
By the way, there is a big post-millenial streak running right down the center of the New Schoolers’ and Kuyper’s back.
LikeLike
Aren’t you saying more than this? Aren’t you also identifying certain contemporary movements, or even individuals, as “Corinthians”? (Such as poor Jonah above).
If you want me to agree, Corinthians Bad, I’ll do it. But if you want to go further and say that so-and-so is just like them, well, I might jump in and call a personal.
“Personal foul: Perjorative labeling. 15-word penalty. Still third down.”
—
Put another way: The Corinthians were bad. So were Arians. And Pelagians. And Cretans, those liars. And Deists and Unitarians, those standard-bearers of the Enlightenment. The question is whether our tendencies towards Corinthianism are the only concern we ought to raise. Should we lurch the ship to the right, however so hard, to avoid the Corinthian rock?
OR
Should we also be mindful of other pernicious tendencies as well?
Sometimes when I hear 2Kers talk, I get the sense that the only True Error is to confuse Law and Gospel (which is the same as confusing Cult and Culture, or Church and State, or Now and Not Yet).
Perhaps there are others. Significantly, the Law/Gospel distinction did not make it directly into the Confession, even though those categories were talked about as early as Luther: “Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done. ”
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff,
Sometimes when I hear 2Kers talk, I get the sense that the only True Error is to confuse Law and Gospel (which is the same as confusing Cult and Culture, or Church and State, or Now and Not Yet).
That was basically Horton’s point when he addressed the Manhattan Declaration. I don’t know that law/gospel confusion is “the only True Error” so much as the Mother of All Errors.
The New School has no use for the Old School doctrine of the spirituality of the church. The only way I see this doctrine being rejected is to affirm the direct and obvious bearing of eternity on the temporal order. And I understand that the one-size-fits-all 1K prosperity gospel point seems fallacious and looks like a mere attempt to smear. But what ties Hinn (low brow) and Warren (middle brow) and neos (high brow) together is the notion that the gospel translates immediately into the various felt temporal needs of sinners. There are certainly distinctions between them as one moves up and down the 1K scale in terms of application. The upper regions, for example, typically don’t affirm the nether region’s quest for cash and bling. So while I see no real distinction, I see significant differences. And while you may not have seen it, I have seen at least some grasp what distinguishes a Christian-secularist from a secularist-secularist. Why, some even begin to see how this Christian secularist gets his abortion views from neither the ACLU nor the pro-life movement.
LikeLike
Jeff, you have heard me say that all of us have Corinth in our hearts (along with Jesus). When the Phillies won last year, I wish it was the beginning of the new heavens and new earth. It wasn’t. So I don’t know why you think I am out to identify others as Corinthian, as if this is personal. If someone harbors liberal theology, what do I do, not point out the problem of their view?
And if Paul wrote two LONG epistles to avoid the rock of Corinthianism, how exactly is lurching again to avoid the rock a bad thing, unless of course you are one of those “moderates” who avoids extremes at all costs.
LikeLike
You and my in-laws both. I married into Phillies fandom, so to speak, which is hard for me since I’m still bitter about the 1980 Phillies-Astros playoffs. I’m still not an Iggles fan, though.
Well, because you *do* identify others as Corinthian: (dgh to Jonah): “Could it be that no matter what I write you have a Corinthian preference?”
You have previous identified any kind of transformational thought as “liberal theology”, which is likely not true. So when you go identifying the problem of their view, you identify the wrong problem (c.f. Zrim: “law/gospel confusion is the Mother of all Errors”), and conversational badness ensues.
So the answer to your question, “what do I do?” is, “Don’t assume that you are seeing liberal theology.” This really goes back to our previous conversation about dualisms. The Law/Gospel dualism is operating here like a bazooka when a scalpel is needed.
(I hope my bluntness doesn’t transgress here.)
Jeff
LikeLike
Mr or Mrs Webmaster i just got a popup from my antivirus when i opened your page do you know how come this occured? Could it maybe from your advertising or something? Thanks, really odd i pray it was harmless?
LikeLike
Hello.This post was extremely motivating, particularly since I was looking for thoughts on this matter last Tuesday.
LikeLike
According to Abraham Kuyper himself, “common grace” is not enough to save a person. “Common grace” is not intended by God to save anyone. “Common grace” is not able to save anyone. “Common grace” merely makes a person outwardly decent and moral, enabling him or her to live usefully and culturally productively in society and the nation.
Kuyper himself did significantly weaken his own stand on this point by ascribing to “common grace” the power of creating in every human a “point of contact” for the gospel. Thus, Kuyper himself, contrary to his own explicit warning, associated “common grace” with salvation. Even on this view, “common grace” by itself alone is not sufficient for salvation. For Kuyper, only particular, saving grace—his second kind of grace—saves humans.
http://www.commongraceandculture.com/questions-answers/
LikeLike
dgh
Posted December 17, 2009 at 5:35 am | Permalink
Jeff, you have heard me say that all of us have Corinth in our hearts (along with Jesus). When the Phillies won last year, I wish it was the beginning of the new heavens and new earth. It wasn’t. So I don’t know why you think I am out to identify others as Corinthian, as if this is personal. If someone harbors liberal theology, what do I do, not point out the problem of their view?
And if Paul wrote two LONG epistles to avoid the rock of Corinthianism, how exactly is lurching again to avoid the rock a bad thing, unless of course you are one of those “moderates” who avoids extremes at all costs.
Jeff Cagle
Posted December 17, 2009 at 12:12 pm | Permalink
When the Phillies won last year, I wish it was the beginning of the new heavens and new earth. It wasn’t.
You and my in-laws both. I married into Phillies fandom, so to speak, which is hard for me since I’m still bitter about the 1980 Phillies-Astros playoffs. I’m still not an Iggles fan, though.
So I don’t know why you think I am out to identify others as Corinthian, as if this is personal. If someone harbors liberal theology, what do I do, not point out the problem of their view?
Well, because you *do* identify others as Corinthian: (dgh to Jonah): “Could it be that no matter what I write you have a Corinthian preference?”
You have previous identified any kind of transformational thought as “liberal theology”, which is likely not true. So when you go identifying the problem of their view, you identify the wrong problem (c.f. Zrim: “law/gospel confusion is the Mother of all Errors”), and conversational badness ensues.
So the answer to your question, “what do I do?” is, “Don’t assume that you are seeing liberal theology.” This really goes back to our previous conversation about dualisms. The Law/Gospel dualism is operating here like a bazooka when a scalpel is needed.
(I hope my bluntness doesn’t transgress here.)
Jeff
Probably the only one at Old Life who actually understands every word you two are wanking about with each other. Let it be on your head. The ultimate outsider is the ultimate insider. The universe laughs.
LikeLike
vd, t, Dec. 17, 2009?
Do you have a wall in your house devoted to Old Life comments, sort of like the ones in The Wire with pictures of Avon and Stringer Bell?
I’m glad Old Life gives you a life.
LikeLike