Over at Confessional Outhouse, RubeRad (what’s up with those names?) has a quotation from Bob Godfrey’s address at the Westminster California conference on Christ and culture. Here it is:
As is often true in the history of the church, we [Kuyperians and 2K-ers] may not all perfectly agree what the Bible says, but I think we’re all agreed with the principle…The Bible is authoritative in everything that it says, about everything that it talks about. But I think we are also all agreed that the Bible, while authoritative in everything that it talks about, is not exhaustive in everything it talks about. The Bible tells us some things about history, but it doesn’t tell us everything about history. I believe it tell us some things about geology, but I don’t think it tells us everything about geology. I would suggest that it’s really only in three areas that we can say … it also speaks comprehensively, or completely, or exhaustively; we as Reformed Christians are committed to the proposition that that everything we need to know about doctrine and salvation is told to us completely in the Bible. … Secondly, we would say that the Bible is exhaustive in what it teaches us about worship. … And thirdly, the Bible tells us all we need to know about the Church and its government. … But I think we can probably agree as well, whatever our approach to Christ and culture, that the Bible does not speak exhaustively about politics. It says a lot of things about politics, it says a lot of things that are relevant to politics, but I don’t think any of us would want to argue that the Bible tells us absolutely everything we need to know about politics. Does the Bible even indisputably teach us whether we ought to have a democracy, or an aristocracy, or a monarchy? John Calvin says it doesn’t. … I don’t think anybody … would want to argue that every aspect of a platform proposed for a civil election could be derived from the Bible; I don’t think anyone would argue that. … So the Bible is authoritative in all that it says, but it doesn’t say everything about anything except salvation, worship, and church government.
I for one do not know a single advocate of two kingdom theology who would not affirm this. And the good thing about this statement is that it keeps first things first — doctrine, worship, and polity — while allowing for differences on other matters because the Bible itself does not pin down those other areas of human endeavor.
What is odd about RubeRad’s post is that he follows up Godfrey’s quotation with one from John Frame, that RubeRad regards as compatible:
Christians sometimes say that Scripture is sufficient for religion, or preaching, or theology, but not for auto repairs, plumbing, animal husbandry, dentistry, and so forth. And of course many argue that it is not sufficient for science, philosophy, or even ethics. That is to miss an important point. Certainly Scripture contains more specific information relevant to theology than to dentistry. But sufficiency in the present context is not sufficiency of specific information but sufficiency of divine words. Scripture contains divine words sufficient for all of life. It has all the divine words that the plumber needs, and all the divine words that the theologian needs. So it is just as sufficient for plumbing as it is for theology. And in that sense it is sufficient for science and ethics as well.
This strikes me as the typical Frame theological method of taking an inch and turning it into a mile. So people will agree with the idea that divine words are sufficient, some divine words apply to plumbing, and — voila — the Bible becomes as sufficient for plumbing as for theology. Hello!??! Do plumbers really need to study the Bible to plumb the way that theologians do to understand God and his revelation? As Fred Willard’s character in Waiting for Guffman said, “I don’t think sooooo.”
Either way, if more Reformed folks would follow Godfrey’s counsel than Frame’s logic, we might actually find that two-kingdom theology is not radical and that Kuyperian rhetoric is often bloated. Can we get a little reason around here?
Old Life 
I promise not to linger, but could it be that you’ve mis-read Frame?
Consider what he says:
(1) The Bible has much less specific information about dentistry [or plumbing] than about theology, and
(2) It has all the divine words the plumber needs.
Put that together. Doesn’t it follow that the plumber needs fewer specific divine words than the theologian? That the “sufficiency of Scripture for plumbing” is a minimalist kind of sufficiency, not an exhaustive sufficiency?
So we go back to “What does the plumber need to do?” Answer: plumb to the glory of God. What divine words does he need to accomplish this? Relatively few. What does this entail? That the Christian plumber has a relatively high degree of liberty in his plumbing.
I think you’ve taken Frame’s inch and read it as a mile.
LikeLike
Jeff, I disagree. The context of Frame’s quote, first of all, is the argument about the insufficiency of Scripture for a variety of callings. He says that this argument misses an important point. So he is against the insufficiency argument. And to contrast it he claims that the Bible is sufficient for all of life, just as much for plumbing as for theology.
On the surface this is just plain silly. The theologian needs the Bible to do his work. The plumber does not need the Bible to repair a leaky faucet. He does not use the Bible as a manual for plumbing the way a theologian uses the Bible as a manual for theologizing. Both the theologian and the plumber still need to glorify God. And the theologian may actually get the Bible right theologically and still not glorify God by doing theology for the wrong motives. But the Bible functions dramatically differently for the task of theology than for plumbing.
That Frame refuses to see this, but instead tries to hold on to some notion that the Bible is sufficient for plumbing — he’s not even talking about glorifying God — is beyond an inch and closer to a mile.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Zrim had the right idea in one of his comments on the original post. Frame’s definition of sufficiency dies the death of a thousand qualifications. Saying the Bible is minimally sufficient is awfully close to saying it is insufficient. The qualifications eventually make the notion meaningless.
I am sure if you asked a Christian plumber what the Bible says about plumbing, he would likely answer, “Not much, but the Bible is clear on how I am to conduct myself before God and men. I try to take that with me as I plumb.”
LikeLike
DGH, I disagree with your disagreement. RubeRad gets it right here.
Jed, saying “the Bible is minimally sufficient” is exactly the accord that Zrim and I reached earlier. We aren’t saying that the Bible tells us everything about everything. We are saying that the Bible tells us everything a Christian plumber needs to know in order to glorify God in his common calling.
Here was the exchange:
JRC: And if Zrim is correct, and I think he is, that the activity of building the bridge is inseparable from the glorifying of God, then we arrive at
P: Scripture is necessary for building a bridge to the glory of God, which is the only kind of bridge-building Christians ought to pursue.
SZ: Jeff,
I think I can live with this. But only after reams of exchanges trying to make it clear that nobody, un/believer alike, needs the Bible to build a bridge, which, I think you understand. But I’ve had enough conversations with others who don’t really seem to. They actually seem to think the Bible really is necessary to getting common tasks done, for both un/believer alike. They explicitly say that the Bible should be on the syllabus to medical training, for example.
So, when it is said that “Scripture is necessary for building a bridge to the glory of God, which is the only kind of bridge-building Christians ought to pursue,†I think it means different things to different people. I think some think this means there really is such a thing as Christian bridges.
What I’m talking about, what Frame is talking about is this: glorifying God in what we do is an integral part of doing it. (And DGH, he affirms this all over the place. I’m surprised that you doubted it in your comment). We need Scripture for this, and the Scripture we have is sufficient for it.
At some point, the “insufficientists” have to address the Confessional teaching:
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture…
Either the Confession is out to lunch, or else “all things necessary for life” is not exhaustive. But we can’t pretend that it’s not there, or that plumbing is not a part of life.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I think the hypothetical plumber’s quote illustrates the fact that scripture speaks to life. And yes, so long as plumbing is a phenomenon of human living, Scripture speaks to how we as plumbers, teachers, architects, and waiters ought to conduct ourselves in our vocations. I don’t think there is any disagreement here. But the precepts of Scripture in play here have a broadly moral and ethical thrust that is applicable to all believers anyway. There aren’t many vocational specifics in the Scripture outside of very specific vocations (priests, kings, etc) in the Old Covenant economy.
The Confession is sufficiently expansive, testifying to the breadth of life that Scripture speaks to. I would contend that it isn’t exhaustive though. “Exhaustive” would mean that Scripture would have to speak to all the constituent parts of life with great detail.
LikeLike
I suffer under the illusion that use of a pseudonym on the interwebs protects my identity from theft, family from predators, etc.
Ennnyways, I read Frame the same as Jeff Cagle. I would go even further than “The Bible has much less specific information about [plumbing]” to say that The Bible has zero specific information about plumbing, but only general information about fair and honest business dealings that are just as applicable to carpenters, dentists, software engineers, etc. If you follow the comment trail at the original post, you will find:
It so happens that this special-revelation-for-plumbing, if we were to gather it all up where it can be found in the Bible, consists in generic ethical commands about fair business dealings and good workmanship, doing all things as if for Christ, etc. Nothing in there about pipes or wrenches or sinks or drains or hairballs…
(It also happens that all of this generic special revelation is written on man’s conscience, so the Christian plumber has no “extra†revelation over the pagan plumber, but only a clearer, more explicit form of the same content)
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle sez: “Either the Confession is out to lunch, or else “all things necessary for life†is not exhaustive.”
I agree those are our two options. It seems to me though that the Reformers recognized extra-biblical wisdom (see the Calvin quote), and they couldn’t have been stupid enough to claim that all of that content was somehow hidden in Scripture.
I think the key is to correlate “faith and life” with later in WCF 1.6, “circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church…which are to be ordered by the light of nature.”
Another important thing, I think (and this is just another way of stating my reading of Frame) is not to forget the first phrase: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life,…” And what counsel of God is necessary for plumbing? Nothing to do with pipes, wrenches, … all that stuff we can figure out from general revelation.
LikeLike
Sorry, “The whole counsel of God” up there was not meant to be hyperlinked, but italicized. Also, I didn’t mean to assert both of those last two paragraphs simultaneously, but either/or; two options for reconciling the confession with itself and sanity. If “faith and life” really means “worship and church government”, then there is no need to speculate about plumbers.
LikeLike
Rube, if you think Frame is in agreement with Godfrey, then why is Frame arguing against those who say the Bible isn’t sufficient for all of life. One question is sufficiency. Another is “all of life,” a phrase that the Standards do not use. They say “life,” not “all of life.” Could it be they are talking about eternal life?
But even if the Divines had this worldly life in mind, then why did they not give us statements on math, rhetoric, economics, art, education, etc.? If the Bible has sufficient teaching on these things, then we have a “thus, sayeth the Lord,” don’t we? In which case it would be possible to declare the whole counsel of God on plumbing. Doesn’t the silence on arts, crafts, and sciences say something?
LikeLike
Is it squeezing miles out of inches or just not listening to yourself? I mean, if the Bible is sufficient for plumbing then shouldn’t it be on the syllabus to Plumbing 101? After all, in the real world, texts that are deemed sufficient to a task are made into required reading.
But, Jeff, I just want to highlight the fact that when we came to what you’re calling an accord I was also trying to be clear that some ways of speaking are just way too confusing to be of any use. In short, you just can’t go around saying the Bible is sufficient for all of life, because most reasonable people take that to mean that the Bible has something direct and obvious to say about temporal tasks.
What I’m talking about, what Frame is talking about is this: glorifying God in what we do is an integral part of doing it.
Then just say that. Don’t say the Bible sufficient for all of life. It’s sufficient for the glorifying of God part of life, but not the building bridges part of life.
LikeLike
Two problems with Godfrey’s comments: One, it’s true the Bible doesn’t tell us EVERYTHING we need to know about things (including politics or plumbing), but it doesn’t follow from this that it doesn’t tell us SOMETHING we need to know about such things. Second, it is not readily apparent to most people outside certain Presbyterian circles that the Bible tells us everything we need to know about church government or worship.
LikeLike
“ Another is “all of life,†a phrase that the Standards do not use. They say “life,†not “all of life.†Could it be they are talking about eternal life?”
Well that’s the question, isn’t it? WCF 1.6 does not say “all of life”, but it does say ” The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life.” If you want to read that as “all things necessary for some of life,” I’m not sure that’s justified. In my mind, a most honest reading of the juxtaposed of “faith and life” is to read “life” as in some sense meaning “not faith”; my gut tells me that the Westminster Divines went overboard with their piousness on this one, and failed to sufficiently backtrack/qualify in the rest of the paragraph when they only applied “ordered by the light of nature” to “worship of God and church government”. I mean, if those areas of the church’s life are to be ordered by the light of nature, how much more life outside the church?
“If the Bible has sufficient teaching on these things, then we have a “thus, sayeth the Lord,†don’t we?”
If you continue to deny Frame’s nuance on the meaning of “sufficient”, then yes.
“Doesn’t the silence on arts, crafts, and sciences say something?”
Yes, to say that the Bible is sufficient for arts, crafts, and sciences is to say that God included in the Bible everything you needed to hear from him (“The whole counsel of God”) on the subjects of arts, crafts, and sciences. In fact, by this (Frame’s) meaning of “sufficiency”, if you ask God “What counsel do you have for me about arts, crafts, and science? I looked in the Bible, and I couldn’t find much,” then God’s answer is “Yes, I have included little-to-no counsel about arts, crafts and science in the Bible, and that is sufficient for you. Now go read my other book.”
LikeLike
“if the Bible is sufficient for plumbing then shouldn’t it be on the syllabus to Plumbing 101?”
You have to ask “sufficient for what”? The bible is sufficient not for stopping leaks, but for providing the ethical framework for honest business.
And you also have to ask “sufficient, OK, but how about necessary?” The bible’s ethical framework is also available in Natural Law and our consciences, so a plumbing curriculum could be complete without the Bible. But who would object to a plumbing curriculum that included a quotation of Prov 11:1?
LikeLike
@Vern: Godfrey is agreeing with you on your first point.
@DGH: Rube, if you think Frame is in agreement with Godfrey, then why is Frame arguing against those who say the Bible isn’t sufficient for all of life.
Possibly, because Godfrey also disagrees with those who say the Bible isn’t sufficient for all of life? I’m not amazingly familiar with Godfrey, but he seems to go the “limited sufficiency” route.
In the linked article, he agrees with Augustine:
The confidence that Paul had in the Scriptures, and which he taught Timothy, was clearly understood by the great church father, Augustine. In his treatise to prepare leaders of the church in an understanding of the Bible (0n Christian Doctrine), Augustine wrote: “Among those things which are said openly in Scripture are to be found all those teachings which involve faith, the mores of living, and that hope and charity which we have discussed.â€
I believe this is the position he also takes in Sola Scriptura, though I’ve read only excerpts.
You know him better than I, so tell me: does Godfrey take the position that WCoF 1.6 is limited to eternal life? Or does he not rather think that the Scripture is the source of power for Christian living?
DGH: Another is “all of life,†a phrase that the Standards do not use. They say “life,†not “all of life.†Could it be they are talking about eternal life?
Could be, but they didn’t say “eternal life.” Why not? Why does the Catechism have so much to say about plain old worldly life, then? And why did the Puritans seem so obsessed with being visible saints?
Assuming that the divines were in the slightest familiar with Calvin, it seems likely that they were talking about the same thing Calvin was talking about in Inst. 2.2 when he speaks of “framing the life in accordance with the Word” or of “regulating our conduct in accordance with the Divine Law.”
That is, “life” in WCoF 1.6 means “this life, lived for the glory of God.”
But even if the Divines had this worldly life in mind, then why did they not give us statements on math, rhetoric, economics, art, education, etc.? If the Bible has sufficient teaching on these things, then we have a “thus, sayeth the Lord,†don’t we? In which case it would be possible to declare the whole counsel of God on plumbing. Doesn’t the silence on arts, crafts, and sciences say something?
Perhaps because those things are not necessary for life in the same way that Scripture is. Knowledge of bridge-building is highly desirable; but in the end, God will not require it of us.
The “eternal life” interpretation is, IMO, close but not quite. Whether eternal or worldly, what is necessary in life is the chief end of man: to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. That end extends both to this world and to the next; and what is necessary for life is to fulfill that end.
If glorifying God were speaking only to eternal life — the age to come — then the extensive teaching of the WLC on the decalogue in relationship to this life would be pointless.
Don’t this world and the next intersect in this way: we are to live this life as citizens of the next.
For that, Scripture is sufficient. And if it does not thereby tell me how to prove results about Legendre Polynomials (I wish it would … it’s taken all day), that simply means that such knowledge, even if highly desirable, is not necessary for life and godliness.
LikeLike
“if the Bible is sufficient for plumbing then shouldn’t it be on the syllabus to Plumbing 101?â€
You have to ask “sufficient for what� The bible is sufficient not for stopping leaks, but for providing the ethical framework for honest business.
And you also have to ask “sufficient, OK, but how about necessary?†The bible’s ethical framework is also available in Natural Law and our consciences, so a plumbing curriculum could be complete without the Bible. But who would object to a plumbing curriculum that included a quotation of Prov 11:1?
Ok, Rube, necessary. But nobody needs the Bible to know the ethical framework for honest business any more than anyone needs it to fix leaks. So if we’re asking what it is necessary for, it is necessary for revealing Jesus (John 5:39), as in the Christocentric point of all Scripture and something natural revelation cannot do. Leaks and ethics are law, Jesus is gospel. So looking to the Bible for imperative-free ethics is just as misguided as looking to it for ways to fix leaks. And including a Proverb in a plumbing text isn’t the same as putting the Bible on the syllabus.
LikeLike
So looking to the Bible for imperative-free ethics…
Check that, “indicative-free ethics.”
LikeLike
Jeff, you wrote: “Perhaps because those things are not necessary for life in the same way that Scripture is. Knowledge of bridge-building is highly desirable; but in the end, God will not require it of us.” This is exactly the point 2k is trying to make about the sufficiency of Scripture — temporary life in this world is not the point of the Bible. Gen. Rev. is sufficient for that. And yet you keep objecting to the point that the arts, sciences, bridges, and plumbing are not revealed in Scripture, or at least you keep trying to find a way to make Scripture necessary for them. But then you say they aren’t necessary for life.
At that point you have solved “life” in WCF 1.6. The Bible reveals what is necessary for life with God.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I took Godfrey to be intimating that the Bible doesn’t really say anything SUFFICIENTLY about anything other than doctrine, liturgy, and ecclesiastical matters. At least that’s how Daryl understood it. “[T]he Bible itself does not pin down those other areas of human endeavor.”
And from Godfrey, he concludes to political quietism: “Either way, if more Reformed folks would follow Godfrey’s counsel than Frame’s logic, we might actually find that two-kingdom theology is not radical and that Kuyperian rhetoric is often bloated. Can we get a little reason around here?”
LikeLike
Are the divine words spoken to the plumber different than the divine words spoken to the dentist? Is the theologian spoken to in a different manner altogether? If not, then Frame’s comment really doesn’t say much.
Scripture does give us all we need for faith and the life of faith that glorifies God and enables us to enjoy Him forever. It is the same Word for all, and that Word is Christ. This is the kingdom of grace and special revelation.
In God’s providential kingdom law and natural revelation is the order. This is demonstrated quite clearly in the case of dentists. Four years of undergraduate study followed by four years in an accredited college of dentistry followed by successful completion of a rigorous clinical evaluation by a state appointed board of examiners grants a license to practice. Additionally, renewal of this license depends on maintaining a level of professional care as demonstrated by ongoing education. This is the same career path for Christians and those who are not, and is a demonstration of God’s providential care in looking after the temporal needs of mankind. The fact that similar programs in countries where Christianity has never been the favored religion also points to the sufficiency natural revelation.
LikeLike
If natural law is “implanted on our hearts and minds” I have often wondered if it is an accurate correlation to say that sin is also “implanted” on some part of our soul after the fall? In Romans 7 Paul talks about sin as if it is almost a living entity inside of us (It is not I who do it but sin that dwells within me). And would not this have to be brought into the above discussion? It is the sin factor which makes these sorts of discussions difficult to communicate clearly. And to make it even more complex there seems to be an interplay between the law and the sin that are “implanted” within us.
The word “implanted” is not easy to get a good grasp of either. Does this mean some sort of Divine surgery or a gardening metaphor into our souls? It probably is one of those things under the heading of the hidden will of God- to complex for our finite minds to grasp. Sin confuses both general revelation and special revelation yet we are called upon to master this cunning and baffling entity within. Seems like an impossible task to me.
LikeLike
John,
I’m not sure that I understand your point. I don’t know that any of us have “implanted” knowledge about how to do plumbing. In the same way, as a lawyer, I doubt that I ever had an implanted ability to draft licensing agreements. I learned by spending countless hours studying the law, attending training sessions, and practicing my craft. I suspect that it’s much the same for the plumber.
Professional diligence is not contrary to NL. But if you’re trying to practice law or plumbing based solely on your “implanted” knowledge, you’re going to end up with a lot of leaky pipes and unhappy clients.
I agree with others in suggesting that Frame’s analysis is a bit duplicitous. Frame is going to great lengths to avoid saying that Scripture is insufficient for plumbing, law, etc. He’s sort of saying that “Scripture is completely sufficient insofar as it is not otherwise insufficient.” Of course, Frame is not alone in this respect. I recall the uproar a few years ago when T. David Gordon published his piece entitled “The Insufficiency of Scripture”.
LikeLike
John,
At least from the R(eformed)2K side of things in these discussions, the doctrine of abiding and inherent sin is always at the heart of it. But it seems that the critics tend to have a less than total understanding of total depravity, vascillating oddly between a sunny view of human ability and utter depravity. Those who deny that general revelation is sufficient for civil tasks seem to think that what created sinners need is special revelation. They forget that even when redeemed sinners use special revelation for its ecclesiastical tasks (sola scriptura) things go just as badly. And the reason for that is abiding and inherent sin. Sinners sin because they are sinners, not because they’re using the wrong book.
LikeLike
Good point, Zrim.
It often seems that transformationalists are apt to have a “sunny view” with regard to their own opinions, and then presume that utter depravity infects any who would disagree with them. See, e.g., BaylyBlog; World Magazine.
LikeLike
Bob,
My point was that sin makes the tasks of interpreting the scriptures and fulfilling our duties in our vocational callings through the use of our reason more difficult and confusing then was originally intended before our fall into sin. Hence, these discussions about the sufficiency of scripture and what it entails in both the church and in our vocations. These discussions would be much more clear if this implanted sin was not a part of our makeup. These “implanted” elements (if that is what you can call them) of natural law and sin, and how they interact in our hearts and minds, distorts this natural law and makes the use of our reason cloudy and our motives anything but pure. Calvin, in cahoots with Luther, called our reason “a corrupted and shapeless ruin” because of sin. We also have a tendency to make up our own laws and determine good and evil for ourselves rather than refer to this natural law implanted in us and more clearly written out in the Law as revealed to Moses. That is why I think the sanctification process is more of a clearing away of our mental cloudiness and doing the hard work necessary to think clearly then trying to conform our outward behavior to the law. When we think clearly our outward behavior will follow. Natural law is always there but we seem to distort and play games with it.
In regards to how we interpret the scriptures we easily revert to similar tactics and “suppress” the truth in unrighteousness. This has to be the result of this “implanted” sin too. My post was trying to convey the fact that we are up against a very powerful force in our sin and only Christ and what he has done for us can reverse the effects of this “implanted” sin. What amazes me is that in many cases unbelievers are more motivated to think more clearly (especially in regards to their vocations) than Christians and often do. Where this power to think more in line with our natural law and where the motivation comes from is a mystery to me.
These implanted elements of natural law and sin have vast philosophical implications too. Thomas Reid, the architect of Scottish common sense realism, used this concept of implanted natural law to refute the philosophy of David Hume. It is a very important concept to get.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart, it’s been a while. How are you?
Let’s dance:
Godfrey: “I believe it tells us some things about geology, but I don’t think it tells us everything about geology.”
DGH on Jan. 9, 2010 at 3:12pm wrote: “Jonah, what possibly is at stake in saying that the Bible speaks to baseball? And why won’t you see that if you grant the Bible does speak to baseball, then Calvary OPC, which ministers the word, has authority over the Phillies manager, Charlie Manuel?”
Dr. Hart, what possibly is at stake in saying that the Bible speaks to geology?
Is it possible that I am detecting a most welcome evolution and progression in your thought as compared to your previous (as many perceived it) contention that the cultural sphere/general revelation and the church/special revelation have little to do with each other?
LikeLike
John,
Thanks for clarifying. I’m still not sure what sanctification has to do with plumbing. Are you suggesting that a more sanctified plumber is necessarily a better plumber than a less sanctified plumber? I think that you’re not, but I’m not sure. Frankly, I’d prefer to hire a more skilled and experienced plumber notwithstanding his degree of sanctification. Wouldn’t you?
As you note, plenty of unsanctified people succeed in various endeavors. I think this testifies to the NL planted in them and to the NL that is planted in everything and everyone around us. For this reason, cultural institutions often develop in a way that rewards those who train themselves to exercise good judgment and forego some of the temptations of the flesh. Of course, these folks’ reasons may be self-serving: to be liked, to avoid being sued, to make more money, etc. On the other hand, I fear that too many evangelicals never learn to exercise good judgment because they think that the Holy Spirit will just implant wisdom into them passively. That’s why I’m not necessarily going to hire a plumber based on his perceived degree of sanctification.
You quoted Calvin and Luther. I suppose that they are talking about the sufficiency of natural reasoning to make one righteous before a holy God. In that context, natural reasoning is deficient because the standard is so impossibly high. But I doubt that Calvin and Luther would suggest that natural reasoning is equally deficient in realm of plumbing.
LikeLike
Jonah,
Maybe Godfrey is referring to Genesis 6-9? I’m not sure that there’s a comparable passage that refers to baseball. Surely there can be no passage that suggests that God affiliates himself with the Phillies. As any good Dutch-American transformationalist knows, God is a White Sox fan (despite their poor start this season).
LikeLike
Seems to me all this talk about baseball or plumbing is euphemistic talk about politics. In the large scheme of things, nobody really cares about baseball or plumbing. So when someone says the Bible doesn’t apply to plumbing, insert politics to get their meaning.
LikeLike
Bob,
You stated: “I’m still not sure what sanctification has to do with plumbing. Are you suggesting that a more sanctified plumber is necessarily a better plumber than a less sanctified plumber? I think that you’re not, but I’m not sure. Frankly, I’d prefer to hire a more skilled and experienced plumber notwithstanding his degree of sanctification. Wouldn’t you?”
I was just saying that sin makes this sufficiency issue a more confusing issue than it should be. If sin was not part of our internal makeup it would be crystal clear what scripture was sufficient for. Our judgment and reasoning abilities would not be clouded and confused and we would not be having discussions like the above.
Sanctification is a word used to describe the process of how the objective work of Christ gets applied to our subjective selves. This works itself out in our loving God’s commandments and conforming our behavior to his law. I do not think it applies to plumbing at all except that seeking to understand what Christ did for us may help us to develop our reasoning skills and reasoning skills will certainly help someone become a better plumber. Being a good plumber or seeking excellence in any vocation seems to be part of the sanctification process too. It reveals that we love our neighbors enough to serve them well and not rip them off. We have a tendency to equate sanctification with piety and spiritual ladder climbing rather than excellence in our vocations. So, excellence in our vocations may reveal more sanctification than a disciplined piety. Again, sin is playing a part in our judgment and reasoning here. We confuse ourselves in what sanctification actually is. Implied in what you said about hiring an experienced plumber notwithstanding his degree of sanctification reveals that you may be still equating sanctification with piety.
You also stated: “You quoted Calvin and Luther. I suppose that they are talking about the sufficiency of natural reasoning to make one righteous before a holy God. In that context, natural reasoning is deficient because the standard is so impossibly high. But I doubt that Calvin and Luther would suggest that natural reasoning is equally deficient in realm of plumbing.”
Natural reasoning is deficient because of our sin. If our reasoning skills were functioning at total clarity all the time I believe we would see who God is more clearly and we would understand who we are more clearly too. And I am not so sure that Calvin and Luther would suggest that natural reasoning is equally deficient in the realm of plumbing. By common grace God has still left some reasoning abilities intact, albeit confused and clouded by our sin. Those who work hard at developing these clouded skills are the ones who surface as competent in their vocations. And it does not matter if you are a believer or unbeliever. What matters is that you do the hard work of developing those skills that God has left remnants of in us.
LikeLike
Vern,
Hats off to your masterful use of postmodern hermenutics. With one fell stroke you have uncovered the true power-play behind all of the baseball and plumbing rhetoric. Derrida would be proud.
LikeLike
Jed,
Don’t understand your sarcasm….Sorry.
LikeLike
Jed,
It may be that Vern is trying to indict 2K rhetoric for what he consistently charges as being “political quietism,” as in “Look, everyone, 2K wants to lower the stakes of what politics can actually effect in this life to be simply a way to imperfectly order this life and get us from day to day in relative peace and order instead of a device to bring about justice of one sort or another.” If so, bingo. Politics isn’t what modernism cracks it up to be. 2K wants to significantly lower the stakes but retain the dignity of politics. I guess that’s dangerous to some.
But, Vern, I for one don’t see what’s so scary about putting realistic perspective on temporal endeavors from sports to plumbing to politics. It’s all very good, but it’s all also very passing. Even that greatest temporal good, life itself, is passing. Jesus said not to get too caught up in it lest it gets between us and him. If that’s true, politics becomes trifling.
LikeLike
Vern,
I didn’t intend to go over your head there, sorry. The sarcasm was intended, as we all appreciate it around here. Trust me, politics aren’t unimportant to 2k-ers, we just approach it differently. I vote, I sign petitions, I voice my opinions, maybe in ways that transformationalists would take issue with, but so do most of my Republican and Democrat friends. I am okay with that. But like Zrim noted, I place limited importance on the realm of politics, it’s not a hill I am willing to die on, even if it’s a pretty important hill.
As a side note, plumbing and baseball are serious issues to me even if like politics, they are passing realities. I greatly value running water and functional sewers, and there are few things in this world I enjoy more than an old fashioned National League pitchers duel. I also hate the designated hitter, and I would probably argue against it with more verve than I would on most political issues. They are valuable talking points in the discussion because they all occupy the secular realm, and how we approach the secular realm is an important part of this particular discussion.
LikeLike
John, where is intelligence in your account of human powers of reason? Would you say that an unregenerate person could be smarter than a saved person? Granted, God gives the intelligence. But why is this all about grace? Why not nature?
LikeLike
dgh,
That is a point that after I posted I was thinking about. Some people are naturally gifted with better inherent reasoning abilities due to their superior intelligence then others and they can use these gifts in differing ways I suppose. So, it does not have to be all about grace at all. What causes these gifted folks to use these gifts for the benefit of others in the culture is providentially directed by God and I think Calvin makes some comment about this in the Institutes. Something to the effect that God marvelously and with wisdom that cannot be comprehended directs the affairs of man both providentially and redemptively and with differing means in their respective realms.
To answer your question- yes, most definitely a unregenerate person could be smarter than a saved person and they often are. Luther acknowledged Erasmus’ superior intelligence although he added the caveat that his arguments were like dung served on a silver platter in regards to his theological thinking.
LikeLike
Jed, unfortunately statists and totalitarians do not place limited importance on the realm of politics. That is why Christians as individuals and churches as institutions adopt sacral retreat at their own peril. Your plumber may overcharge you, but government can threaten your life, liberty, and property.
LikeLike
Yes, true Kuyperians agree with Godfrey (who is himself a Kuyperian), and do not agree with Frame.
Anyway, Frame is confused. The Bible does not contain a sufficiency of “Divine words,” because there is also the Divine word is creation [natural/general revelation].
LikeLike
Vern, why are you more concerned about totalitarians than Paul was, who taught submission to a tyrant? The point isn’t that tyranny is good, or shouldn’t be opposed. The question is whether it is the calling of Christians or the church to oppose it. We have political means for doing that.
LikeLike
Your plumber may overcharge you, but government can threaten your life, liberty, and property.
Vern,
I don’t like my wallet being overcharged or my life threatened. But you still have to show how Scripture, instead of these personal discomforts, warrants compelling individual believers qua believers/churches to actively resist civil authorities.
Your notion from the duality thread that the fourth is out the window suggests you think the New Covenant changes some things, and I agree. I don’t at all see how that nullifies the fourth, but if we’re going to be particularly concerned with the New Testament, which I think a pilgrim theology is over against a theocratic one, I don’t see any categories whatsoever that suggest civil resistance. In point of fact, all I see is submission.
LikeLike
Vern,
My problem isn’t with political activism. Our current system of government certainly allows this. Each individual is bound by conscience in how they deal with the current political scene. However, I have a real problem when churches, or believers for the sake of the church or Christianity make their cause a political one.
Life, liberty, and property may be sacred American ideals, however they are not in the NT, where we are called to turn the other cheek, forgo certain rights, and offer our cloak to him who asks. By laying down our lives and holding fast to the testimony of Jesus we overcome Satan and his evil influence over the state. If the primary mission of the church was to be cultural and political transformation, don’t you think the NT would have given a more pragmatic program, after all seeking to lead a quiet life isn’t the surest way to change the world.
LikeLike
Baus: “Anyway, Frame is confused. The Bible does not contain a sufficiency of “Divine words,†because there is also the Divine word is creation [natural/general revelation].”
Yes, that’s why I said “‘Divine’ might not be the best term; I would suggest “specially revealed words†vs. “generally revealed words†(as in BC2’s two books). So we could then say that the Bible provides sufficient special revelation for plumbing, but plumbing also requires a great deal of general revelation.”
LikeLike
Zrim,
There is a history of resistance thinking to tyrannical and oppressive political regimes in reformed thought. The most able advocates of this position were John Knox, Beza, Samuel Rutherford and a few others whose names I cannot recall right now. This thinking was motivated by the propensity of “bloody” Mary to violently oppose and stop the ongoing Protestant reformation in the later part of the 16th century.
These thinkers did not draw on scriptural sources for the foundation of their thinking but on Roman and Greek pagan thought. They felt this was part of natural law and based it on the natural need for self-preservation of themselves, their children and the possessions that God gave them stewardship responsibilities for. David VanDrunen has a whole chapter on this in his recently published book that I am sure you are aware of.
They did advocate that it was the lesser magistrates responsibility in government to be watchful for tyrannical tendencies in superiors governing and to resist this tendency if necessary.
LikeLike
John,
I can’t help but notice that these reformers were indebted to NL for their derivative arguments of political resistance. Once you make the move to political resistance, however merited, you necessarily take a step out of the church and into the secular sphere.
Maybe there are times when the good of the common sphere and political realm call for resistance, but I am of the conviction that the church should be wary of officially sanctioning any such resistance. I am sure that the objections of “yeah but what about the Nazi’s?” will surface, but that only obscures the nature of most resistances, and we have exhausted that conversation on prior posts. Should’ve American churches made official stances on the Stamp Act? Should they have encouraged participation in the Boston Tea Party?
It seems that trying to make political activism in the common realm a Christian enterprise is a confusion of the true meaning and purpose of the Christian faith. Political activism and resistance will always be a part of the human story because we are political creatures, but as Christians it would be wise to properly distinguish the politics of this passing world with that of the kingdom that endures.
LikeLike
On the matter of Reformed resistance theory, Phillip Benedict, following Quentin Skinner’s history of political theory, argues that well before Reformed Protestants were advocating resistance — and there was a great variety of thought thanks to very different political situations (whether a Roman Catholic or Protestant ruler, for starters) — Roman Catholics and Lutherans were also developing a resistance literature. In fact, Roman Catholics developed it first during the medieval era.
For what it’s worth.
LikeLike
John,
I am aware of the resistance thinking in Reformed history, etc. The question for me has always been how it squares with the NT, which seems to know little to nothing of civil resistance but, in telling contrast, spills over with submission.
I think it’s key when you point out that “these [Reformed] thinkers did not draw on scriptural sources for the foundation of their thinking but on Roman and Greek pagan thought.†The take away for me is that pagan thought is pretty good, but my sense is that some take away that pagan thought is Christian. More temporal-eternal tension that just doesn’t seem always accounted for. And I’m not sure there is always an awareness as to how resistance thinking appeals greatly to our inner American who has resistance in his DNA. Meanwhile, Paul, like Jesus before him, willingly lays down his rights instead of looking for ways to press them and resist those who frustrate them.
I’m not saying any of this is easy to resolve. All I’m saying is that I don’t see how civil resistance (be it pagan, Roman Catholic, Lutheran or Reformed) squares with NT ethics.
LikeLike
Trust me, Vern. I care much more about the White Sox (and non-leaky pipes) than I care about politics.
LikeLike
Bob, if the state or city were trying to close down your home Bible study meetings, would you get more interested in politics?
LikeLike
Zrim,
You stated: “I’m not saying any of this is easy to resolve. All I’m saying is that I don’t see how civil resistance (be it pagan, Roman Catholic, Lutheran or Reformed) squares with NT ethics.
VanDrunen points out that the reformers allowed for great flexibility in how civil law works itself out in differing cultures and differing political situations even when centered and interpreted around natural law. Determining punishments for breaking laws were also seen as highly flexible. I think you have to apply that principle when thinking about resistance theory too. It depends on the political situation you are having to confront at a particular time. This definitely is a dicey issue to resolve especially in light of how Christ handled some of the aggression and resistance inherent in some of the disciples responses to Roman law and Jewish religious leaders of the time.
The Reformers were a feisty bunch themselves and when you read the tone and manner of how they presented their arguments you know they were fighting for their very lives and those whom they loved. Their passion is highly attractive and moving. It takes much wisdom to determine how to present your case in a variety of environments and situations. And on top of that not you cannot cave in to situational and relativistic ethics- the basis of your thinking must always be immutable, universal, transcendent and personal. A very tall order indeed. Certainly us sinners can only accomplish that through a power greater than our own internal resources.
LikeLike
John,
The point about flexibility in relative times and places is always a good one. And with that in mind, my point here is that it seems as though the American believer has more of an allergy against the categories of authority/submission than resistance. This seems especially true in American Reformed circles, where it seems to be considered almost the duty of the individual believer and corporate church to keep Caesar in his place and slap his wrists when he is considered to have acquired too much power, etc.
Again, I can see how the American part of the American-Christian does this, but I don’t see how the Christian part does. And isn’t the Christian part supposed to win the day? And to the extent that it conceives of civil disobedience as more virtue than vice, could it be that American polity is more at war than peace with Christian piety, despite certain Memorial Day sermons and general sentiments (even among the Reformed)?
LikeLike
Zrim,
Your point is well taken. I would also point out that dispensationalists, emergents and all types of revivalists are equally aggressive when it comes to asserting their wills against the governmental powers that be. We are not fighting against a “bloody” Mary as of yet. The political situation in America is not close to entering a period of violence (at least I do not see it yet). Maybe some would disagree with me here. To be sure government seems to be expanding itself at a much too rapid rate but the reasons for this are wide and complex. Many Christians seems to think that “they” are out to get us. This speaks more to a paranoia in Christendom than a actual reality I think.
LikeLike
Another point, Calvin and the Reformers were more worried about anarchy among the masses then they were about a government trying to maintain law and order in society. This always has to be kept in mind when we are thinking through these issues.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Tried to send this on the contact form but it didn’t seem to work–slightly out of place as a comment but I wanted to get in touch.
Various Googling efforts and the Heidelblog have led me to your blog. I’ve been perusing some of your two kingdom ideas and ran across your piece on Kuyperians listening to Kuyper and this piece. You seem to associate Kuyperians with theonomists. This seems to be a mistake to me and I’m wondering how you would compare the principled pluralism (both structural and confessional) ideas of Skillen and his Association of Public Justice and other true Kuyperian/Dooyeweerdians (not the evangelical types who just seem to latch on to the worldview and antithesis ideas) to the two kingdom idea.
Here in Fort Collins, CO I’m alive and well in the CRC now after a brief stint in the PCA. Perhaps I used your name in vain recently on the OPC email discussion list, but I claimed that Machen was probably closer to Warfield on evolution questions than most OPC folks are willing to admit. When challenged, I appealed to a couple of Machen passages that I knew of and then suggested that we check in with you.
I’ve been wading through “Recovering Mother Kirk”. I know that you and John Muether think of me as a new schooler/new lifer, but I refuse to be so pigeon-holed. While I’m quite comfortable with contemporary worship music in particular, I find your discussion there to be helpful and challenging.
TG
LikeLike
Way late comer, I know, but that quote is from A Mighty Wind, not Waiting for Guffman.
LikeLike