225 thoughts on “Putting the TR in Trueman”

1. *apple falls from tree*
   *rolls down hill*
   *falls off cliff*

   LikeLike

2. Hi Dr. Hart,

   I am trying to get a handle on what you mean by “worldviewism” and the idea that there is not a Christian view of, say, epistemology &c? Is it simply that there is not a Christian way to turn wrenches and pound nails, or is the criticism more profound than that?

   In your book A Secular Faith you write that Christianity has “very little to say about politics and the odering of society,” but that “[t]his does not mean that Christianty has nothing to say” on those matters (and others, like epsitemology, aesthetics, politics, etc?) (SF, p.10).

   Simillarly, R.S. Clark, in Recovering the Reformed Confession, writes that it “is true that whatever a human being knows is conditioned by the existence of divine revelation,” and the Bible’s relevance in speaking to all of areas of life is ubiquitous; so much so that Clark could say that, “Scripture speaks *to* football games, but not *of* them” (RCC 24).

   And then we have Van Til and he many worldview statements. Van Til, with R.S. Clark, says that Christians know something about everything. At a minimum, since all that exists is either creator or created, Christians then know at least one fact about all things. Van Til would go on to argue that even this minimal unobjectionable truism had major implications for all of life.

   To me, the above is a recipie for a worldview. This worldview is broader than what we find in the Confession, say. And, furthermore, the Confession and Catechisms have propositions that imply or entail other propositions not explicitly stated in the Confession.

   So, when you (seem to) speak negativiely of a Christian or Biblical epistemology, do you mean to say that there is no such thing? Would you disagree with Dr. James Anderson’s post here, for example:

   http://proginosko.wordpress.com/2009/04/25/a-biblical-epistemology/

   Or perhaps you agree with Anderson. Perhaps you have in mind a specific concept of worldview that you find troubling. If so, and since I no doubt agree that there are some troubling conceptions of ‘worldview,’ I was wondering of you might elaborate on just waht you mean when you disparage “worldviewism.” You don’t need to spell it out here, if you have a post you could refer me to (yours or someone else’s) that would work.

   Thanks.

   PM

   LikeLike

3. I like what you say here, but –as usual– it doesn’t apply to neocalvinism any more than exposing the infidelity of the PCUSA or EPC would constitute a critique of Presbyterianism.

   I’m never going to convince you of this, I understand. But I’ll keep telling you, nevertheless.

   LikeLike

4. Dr. Hart,

   It would be great to know what the Archbishop of New York thinks about all of this.

   If a member of the OPC were made the president of a Jesuit school and it turned out that he had been attending mass rather than worshipping in one of our churches – we would excommunicate him.

   Dinesh D’Souza is, in many ways, a fine scholar. But the fact that he claims to be a Roman Catholic while worshipping at Calvary Chapel reveals that he has a very superficial understanding of ecclesiology. I wonder if the Roman Catholic magisterium is as fuzzy on this issue as evangelicals are.

   David

   LikeLike

5. Thanks, again, for continuing to post updates on this discussion.

   Trueman makes an important point near the end of his reply. By referring to a “Christian worldview” in exclusively singular terms, Kuyperians implicitly deny any significance to differences among Christian sects that may lead us to arrive at different conclusions on political and economic matters. And, by implication, the Kuyperians suggest that one is less of a “Christian” when one allows these sectarian differences to interfere with their desire to have Christian unity as to the merits of free-market economics, neoconservative foreign policy, and state-sanctioned social conservatism.

   World Magazine, and particularly its blog site, provide a good example of this Kuyperian singularity in action. Christian orthodoxy has come to be defined almost exclusively in terms of the degree to which one agrees with a right-wing populist view of economics, social policy, and diplomacy. Thus, the correctness of one’s theology is not judged in terms of one’s actual theological affirmations, but rather is judged on whether one holds to the one “Christian” view of politics and economics.

   Almost 20 years ago, Mike Horton wrote his book “Culture Wars”. In the book, he predicted that the evangelical obsession with socio-cultural conflict would eventually emasculate the church and lead to a “Christian” witness that had little place for the person and work of Christ.

   LikeLike

6. “By referring to a “Christian worldview” in exclusively singular terms, Kuyperians implicitly deny any significance to differences among Christian sects that may lead us to arrive at different conclusions on political and economic matters.”

   I think that’s over-simplified. These types of objections have been raised for some time against similar positions (e.g., language games (a la Wittgenstein), conceptual schemes (a la Lewis), webs of belief (a la Quine), and “the Christian worldview” (a la Bahnsen). The basic answer here is that there can be a single language game, conceptual scheme, Christian worldview, etc., that allows for differences. A simple explanation can be given by referencing Wittgenstein and his answer to a similar challenge. He said that members of a language game are like a family, or, what he called a “form of life.”. A family can allow for differences, though they’re all members of the same family. That is, there’s a “family resemblance.” So, there can be a “Christian worldview” while there are also differences within that broader worldview. Even where there are differences, those differences are often brought about not by radically different fundamental presuppositions, but by differences over factual matters. This is seen in other areas as well. Look at all the different moral beliefs. These are not always due to different moralities, but different assessments of the facts. So, while the Hindu may claim that we are immoral for eating meat, this is not an application of a different moral principle. It is an application of the principle, “one ought not eat grandma.” It so happens that Hindus believe the cow is grandma! So we both would share the same moral principle while issuing in wildly different applications of the principles to our circumstances.

   The above is short, but serves to show the direction one could go to argue for a “Christian worldview” while also allowing differences.

   LikeLike

7. Paul, I am not a philosopher. I have had enough interactions with some worldview proponents, especially of a Reformed variety (who also happen to be philosophically trained) to sense that the claims made are sensible when it comes to the narrow range of philosophical banter. But when it comes to the way that most people live, and think they know the world, I don’t think it makes much sense. This may be the product of a very unphilosophical mind. But I do think I know that lots of people who aren’t Christians know a whole lot more than I do, and they are often wiser about it.

   As to your point about a variety within the word Christian, part of the problem is that Christian is a normative term. I know different forms of Christianity exist. But the claim to have a Christian view of X is meant to say that there is a right interpretation of X. And in some cases, such as Christian day schools, the plurality of views is hard to find.

   LikeLike

8. Thanks Dr. Hart,

   “But when it comes to the way that most people live, and think they know the world, I don’t think it makes much sense.

   Why?

   “But I do think I know that lots of people who aren’t Christians know a whole lot more than I do, and they are often wiser about it.

   So are you saying that “worldviewism” claims that “people aren’t Christians” don’t “know a whole mot more than” you or I do?

   I agree that Christian is a normative term, but I didn’t get your last point. Are you saying that a plurality of answers to X means that there is no right answer to X? But math tests given to 30 students defeats this. And, still, in keeping with what I said above, why can’t there be different answers from two people within the same worldview due to, among other things, a different assessment of the facts? For example, I would think there is a Christian view on the poor and how to care for them. Or, there is a Christian view that exiles should seek the prosperity of the city. But, some Christians may think that there are different ways to acheive this. Similarly with Christian schools. I would think that both sides agree we have a responsibility to our children, we are to raise them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. However, due to various factors, this norm may be applied differently based on non-normative reasons or factual matters (much like my example of the Hindu who applies a norm to a non-moral fact because of his belief about the facts of the world).

   Thanks again.

   LikeLike

9. Paul, on diversity of Christian education, please read Dr. Kloosterman. I’m an infidel for suggest diversity.

   On the first point, most people are not philosophers (and that’s a good thing). Most people are not epistemically self-conscious. I dare you to find Scripture which says that all Christians must be so intellectually formed and engaged. So Christians aren’t nearly as knowledgeable as Worldviewism claims. And non-Christians know a lot more than Worldviewism claims because the knowledge of non-Christians is in many cases better than Christians’. They don’t know Christ and Christians have a leg up there. But otherwise, I don’t see any reason for thinking that regeneration increases IQ or wisdom. I have lots of experience to suggest the opposite.

   Isn’t reality supposed to prompt the adjustment of theory?

   LikeLike

10. Dr. Hart,

    Most people are not trained philosophers, yes. And, yes, most are not epistemologically self-conscious. But I’m not seeing how it follows from those claims that “there is no Christian worldview” or that “worldviewism” is something to be disparaged or, worse, something impossible. It’s certainly not obvious that the conclusion follows, and I don’t see how the derivation could be done without at least resting upon some very dubious premises. And, I still don’t know what you have in mind when you say “worldviewism,” or, Christian “worldview.”

    As far as your dare goes, I need at least a tripple dog dare. 🙂 Of course, “intellectually formed and engaged” is pretty vague, so I don’t know what you mean by that. But for starters, take 1 Peter 3:15. Depending on your response, I have several commentaries I can copy and paste here (e.g., Schreiner’s, Marshall’s, Gopelt’s, Jobes’s).

    When you say, “Christians aren’t nearly as knowledgeable as Worldviewism claims,” and “non-Christians know a lot more than Worldviewism claims because the knowledge of non-Christians is in many cases better than Christians,”‘ I’m wondering what “worldviewism” is and who or where this is claimed. Just so you know where I’m coming from, I’m taking “worldview” and its importance and relevance in Van Tillian terms. As you may know, on Van Til’s view, he explicitly repudiated that Christians know more facts than non-Christians, and that unbeleivers don’t know anything. Indeed, every “worldviewite” I’m familiar with doesn’t claim any Christian whoever could win Who Wants to be a Millionaire?.

    Lastly, who has ever claimed that regeneration increases intelligence quotients or wisdom? If this is the “worldviewism” you have in mind, I joing with you in repudiating it; but then, so does every proponent of “worldview” that I know of. So again, I really don’t know what you’re getting at. Usually critiques have a target.

    I’m not trying to be testy here, I’m trying to learn. I have a paper I’m writing on the subject of 2K disdain for “worldviewism” and the more radical versions of worldviewism out there, i.e., those who claim that the Bible provides a detailed blueprint on all issues of life.

    Oh, did you read the Anderson post I linked to? If so, do you agree or disagree?

    Thanks.

    PM

    P.S. “Isn’t reality supposed to prompt the adjustment of theory?

    Of course that’s complicated since often when we take to be reality is theoretical. As philosophers of science are won’t to say, observation is theory-laden. And, given the interconnectedness of our beliefs, reality may cause an adjustment in theory, but where the adjustment is made depends upon which beliefs we hold more tenaciously. For example, if you believe that all gods are immortal, and you believe that Apollo is a god, and then you see the reality that Apollo dies in battle, where do you make the adjustment? Well, that depends on whether you’re more presuppositionally committed to the thesis that all gods are immortal or to Apollo’s divinity.

    LikeLike

11. Paul,

    What do you think of this presupposition?

    “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.”

    How tenaciously do you hold on to it?

    LikeLike

12. Paul, you write: “Usually critiques have a target.”

    When it comes to Darryl’s caricatures of neocalvinism, he hits his imaginary bulls-eye every time!

    LikeLike

13. Paul, Baus is right about one thing. I hit my targets. What Baus fails to mention is that after I hit them he runs to the purest of pure expression of Dooyeweerdianism and finds that I haven’t hit — get this — Baus.

    I suggest you read VanDrunen’s book on NL and 2k. Here is how he concludes a stunning chapter on Dooyeweerd and his proponents, such as Stob, Neil Plantinga, and Wolters (I’m sure Baus is saying, “they’re not Dooyeweerdian the way I am.”):
    “. . . Dooyeweerd and these representative neo-Calvinists have, in other ways, taken a Reformed and particularly Kuyperian, approach to cultural engagement in directions different from that provided by much of the earlier tradition through the doctrines of natural law and the two kingdoms. They reject, modify, or simply pass over traditional Reformed articulation of ideas such as the two mediatorships of the Son of God and the covenant of works and, in so doing, come to ground the cultural task in both the creating and redeeming work of God. They follow Kuyper’s lead in seeking to make the spheres and activities of culture “Christian,” yet without his nuances and qualifications that defend such Christianization in light of the reality of a common grace rooted in creation but not redemption. Furthermore, in Dooyeweerd and especially in his North American disciples, one sees an eschatological burdening of cultural work in which such work becomes a specifically Christian task, pursued through a comprehensive Christian world-and-life-view and with the goal of bringing the kingdom of God to eschatological fulfillment. The earlier Reformed view of cultural activity as a temporal task of the civil kingdom, theoretically a common endeavor among believers and unbelievers, governed primarily through a natural law to which all people had access and insight has thus been significantly redirected. For the neo-Calviniists considered here, there are no independent purposes of common grace or a civil kingdom, but all is subsumed under the purposes of redemption and eschatological consummation.” (pp. 384-85)

    So my objections are the rejection of important distinctions within NL and 2k habits of thought, privileging of philosophy (especially Kant and Hegelian — where did transcendental method and worldview come from?), and impracticality — the world doesn’t work this way and no Christian lives as if only Christians were within their epistemic rights.

    LikeLike

14. Joy,

    Though that’s not a presupposition, I hold that pretty tenaciously. But the only way I can think of why you might think that quote is contrary to anything I’ve said is because you have in mind a caricature of my position.

    Dr. Hart,

    I’ve read all of VanDrunen’s books (and four of yours). Anyway, DVD is expressing a worldview, or at least some of the elements of his worldview. And when you speak of “epistemic rights” and such, you’re expressing some of your epistemology. You apparently think the Bible does not contradict what you’re saying, and maybe you think the Bible teaches what you’re saying. DVD tries to argue that the *Bible* teaches natural law ethics (at the metaethic level) and 2K. Indeed, DVD’s book on bioethics looks to the *Bible* for many answers to bioethical questions. DVD speaks of certain Christian presuppositions that don’t allow us to give certain answers to bioethical questions.

    In any case, are you saying you don’t have a problem with “the Christian worldview,” you just have a problem with the ones that “reject 2K distinctions, privilege philosophy (especially Kant and Hegel), and are impractical?”

    Anyway, surely you know (you rub elbows with Muether, right?) that Van Til taught that unbelievers know things. This would mean that they are within their epistemic rights. By the way, “being with your epistemic rights” is the language deontologist internalists use to speak of justification. Gettier showed that we can be “within our epistemic rights” about p, and not know that p, where p is some proposition. So, I certainly believe non-Christians can be within their epistemic rights. I believe they can also know things. I believe they know a great many things more than me. So I still fail to see how all of this gets you to the conclusion that “there is no Christian worldview” or “worldviews are in some sense, ‘naughty’.” I know that Van Til didn’t think that all cultural activities are a “specifically Christian task, pursued through a comprehensive Christian world-and-life-view and with the goal of bringing the kingdom of God to eschatological fulfillment.” When DVD goes on to speak of “the earlier Reformed view,” he’s thinking of the *biblical* view of culture, and how believers and unbelievers interact within the civil kingdom. Indeed, this kingdom is the way it is because of *common grace* — a *biblcial* concept. So your view of culture is taken from “the Bible.” Hence you think this view, along with other things, is part of “the Christian worldview.”

    Where am I off?

    LikeLike

15. DGH: But the claim to have a Christian view of X is meant to say that there is a right interpretation of X.

    No, you’ve asserted this a whole lot, and it’s incorrect. The claim to have a Christian view of X means nothing more nor less than

    (1) Scripture teaches some things directly or by good and necessary inference,
    (2) To the best of my ability, my view of X is bounded by (1).

    So it turns out that the whole notion of Christian liberty is part of a “Christian worldview.” So is 2k teaching — though its status with regard to (1) is hotly debated.

    Do some Christians go beyond this and assert that their Christian view is the only Christian view? Sure. That comes about by “illegitimate foreclosure” — drawing inferences out of Scripture that seem good and necessary, but aren’t.

    But that unfortunate situation is not an argument against the general idea of a Christian worldview, any more than the Nationals are an argument against the general idea of baseball.

    DGH: And in some cases, such as Christian day schools, the plurality of views is hard to find.

    I think you’d find a somewhat vigorous plurality of views here.

    LikeLike

16. It seems a lot easier and much less complicated to base your reality and view of the world on confessions and catechism’s then on philosophical speculations and world view thinking. Discussions like these usually gets one more confused than anything else. With confessional standards at least there is a chance at some clarity. With philosophical speculation and world view thinking you inevitably have to bring philosophical categories into play which not too many people have spent the time trying to understand. As far as I understand that was the point of Thomas Reid’s Scottish Common Sense Realism. It gave the philosophically inclined more confidence in the revelation of the scriptures which made much philosophica speculation unnecessary and a waste of time. Our human autonomy and reasoning ability is very limited due to the noetic influence of sin. We can trust the scriptures and the major theologians who interpreted them (accurately one assumes and hopes and then the Church is in continual dialog with) in the writing of the major confessions of the faith. This is enough to accomplish God’s purposes in the Church and the culture.

    Everyone should watch Trueman’s short video’s that Darryl linked. No one has brought those into the discussion here. I find it interesting that Trueman thinks self-righteousness is the great temptation that many fall into and get trapped by in today’s intellectual climate. We have ceased to fall into despair when confronted with our own own limitations and the holiness of God. We now revert to self-righteousness and self-justifications. That is the message I got from those tapes and I think it is one that needs to be communicated more thoroughly.

    LikeLike

17. Paul, if you’ve read all of DVD’s books, what do you make of his chapters in NL and 2k on Dooyeweerd and Van Til? I don’t see any retreat on your part on the basis of those chapters. I don’t know how anyone could read those chapters and not think that worldviewism as cultivated and popularized by Dutch Calvinists for the last century is in need of some serious tweaking.

    Plus, did Paul have a worldview (the apostle, that is)? You may answer yes. But when did Christians begin to use the word worldview to apply to someone’s outlook? It didn’t happen until the 19th c. It’s hard to see claims for a comprehensive view of the world in the Reformed creeds and catechisms, the sort of truth that believers needed to know because God had revealed it. The only real effort at comprehensiveness comes, as near as I can detect, with the experimental Puritanism of the 1590s and after when writers began to give advice on how to do a whole host of common activities from pious motives. That makes me suspect that worldviewism is really a highbrow version of pietism — of trying to show everyone that my faith matters all the time.

    LikeLike

18. Jeff,

    You have completely lost me. You say that I am incorrect to say that claims for a Christian worldview imply normativity. Then you write:

    “The claim to have a Christian view of X means nothing more nor less than

    (1) Scripture teaches some things directly or by good and necessary inference,
    (2) To the best of my ability, my view of X is bounded by (1).”

    So if Scripture teaches what my view of X is, then how is that not normative? Again, think Frame. The RPW for all of life. Scripture is the norm for everything — as in normative.

    So how am I incorrect?

    I am arguing for liberty in how we view X (when the Bible does not speak to it). I am arguing that it is okay to think about Obama like a Republican, or about professional sports like a Phillies fan, or about history like the officers of the American Historical Association.

    You seem to say, along with worldviewers, that the Christian should have biblical guidelines for healthcare, the suicide squeeze, or footnotes.

    LikeLike

19. DGH: You have completely lost me. You say that I am incorrect to say that claims for a Christian worldview imply normativity.

    I’m so glad you asked that, because this is the heart of our discussion on these matters over the last … what, 2 years?

    The short answer is that “normativity” (yes!) is not the same as “exhaustive normativity.” (no.)

    For example: it is normative that we preach from Scripture, and only from Scripture, in worship. That norm, however, does not exhaust every question. Which text? What exegetical method? What style? What tie should I wear? All these questions are left undefined in Scripture, as indeed the Westminster Divines realized.

    Normativity does not imply exhaustive normativity.

    See, I am also arguing for liberty in how we view X (to the extent that the Bible does not speak to X). Indeed, such liberty is part and parcel of “a Christian worldview.”

    Take Frame’s Fresh Look essay (not so fresh anymore). He argues that Scripture norms all of life. He even says that Scripture is sufficient for all of life. All the language that gives you the creeps.

    But then, he *also* argues in the same essay, two sentences later, that Scripture does not specify every detail of life. In fact, he puts those two thoughts together in the same sentence:

    When I change a tire, I should do it to the glory of God. The details I
    need to work out myself, but always in the framework of God’s broad commands
    concerning my motives and goals.

    So either he’s completely blithered, or else his idea of “norming” and “sufficient” does not mean “specifies every detail.” Scripture may very well not teach a worked-out theory of tire-changing.

    Right? Isn’t that the only reasonable way to read him?

    Now … I don’t think Frame is as clear as he ought to be on this point. He’s put all the pieces out on the cutting room floor without making the obvious point: “sufficient” means “sufficient for man to glorify God in his undertakings” — that is, to achieve his chief end.

    Scripture doesn’t tell me how to tie sutures. But it does tell me enough so that I can glorify God in my suture-tying — which is accomplished by faith.

    And the funny thing is, I think you agree with all of this, but somehow the language gets in the way.

    You will notice, however, that I’ve modified your statement in one important way. You wrote, “I am arguing for liberty in how we view X (when the Bible does not speak to it).”

    I modified it to, “I am arguing for liberty in how we view X (to the extent that the Bible does not speak to it).”

    The Bible speaks to every action, but not to equal extent to every action; in fact, many actions have no Scriptural norm other than “love God, love neighbor.” Liberty begins where the explicit (or good-and-necessary) extent of Scripture ends.

    Are we any closer?

    LikeLike

20. Paul & Jeff,

    It seems to me that a worldview different from a confession. The former is creation, the latter redemption. True enough, there may appear to be some overlap, but that seems to be the very reason to carefully distinguish between the two. A confession says that there really is only one right way to understand a thing and other ways are wrong (e.g. Trinity, baptism, the relation of faith to justification, etc.) Worldviews don’t really do that, they don’t have a “(to the extent that it is consistent with Scripture) thus saith the Lord” affixed.

    It seems to me that the problem is that worldviewism wants to apply confessionalism to that which is open to debate, which is really just a variant of confusing creation with redemption. Not to open too many cans of worms, but to confuse these categories is precisely how you get the confusion of law and gospel, which is the material principle of the Protestant Reformation.

    And, Jeff, yes, it could very well be that it’s a matter of language getting in the way, but that has what I think is a real simple solution: if you don’t mean that “Scripture specifies every detail of life” then don’t say “Scripture is sufficient for all of life.” At the very least, you should be able to see how the language is quite puzzling and dies the death of a thousand qualifications. Better to say that general revelation is sufficient for civil tasks and special revelation is sufficient for ecclesiastical tasks. But since you object to this language and prefer the more puzzling lingo, it must mean that it’s more than “mere language.” Can you at least see how, by this, it appears that what you mean is that the Bible does indeed provide for every detail of life, no matter how much you protest to the contrary? But exchanging the language would go a long ways in convincing me that when you say the Bible doesn’t provide for every detail you actually mean it. Until then, all your spinning and whirling seems like a lot of smoke and mirrors.

    LikeLike

21. Darryl,

    Is this the hidden premise of your argument: “If you read VanDrunen, then you will agree with VanDrunen.” I don’t find that conditional terribly plausible. But if you have an argument for it, I’m all ears.

    Now, is there something specific in DVD that refutes anything I have said here? And, I intimated above that much of what passes for “worldview thinking” is in need of “tweaking.” But you’re not careful in your comments and you paint with a very broad brush. You seem to disparage any and all worldview thinking and language. Do you condem all worldviewism, or just some worldviewism? You make broad claims about the impossibility(?) or impropriety(?) of, say, “biblical epistemology.” I then linked you to a paper on the subject, said I agreed with it, and wondered what your take was. Do you think anything VanDrunen said contradicted that post by Dr. Anderson? I don’t see what it could be, but maybe you could point it out for me. And, have you read DVD’s book on bioethics? That’s a good example of what I think about worldviews and how they can function. Indeed, I once linked you to a paper by DVD on Culture Wars. You said 2Kers could disagree with each other. Apparently DVD made too many worldviewish sounding claims there. So one is left lost as to why you’re pointing me to DVD.

    Yes, I believe Paul had a worldview. Since all men do, and Paul is a man, Paul does. Didn’t you hear about the crash that made the front page of the Athens Times? Two worldviews clashed on Mars hill. Paul gave an interpretation of God, man, history, and eschatology. This view was at odds with the greeks, with their worldview. Paul made other epistemic claims. For example, apparently natural man’s epistemology judges certain elements of the Christian worldview, “foolish.” Who was Paul to say that “asking for signs” was an invalid epistemology? Or, when Jesus said that even if a man comes back from the dead, the spiritually dead will not believe. That claim irks atheists. They hate it. Who was Jesus to tell them that they are dishonest in their skepticism and epistemic procedures for belief aquisition?

    Now, of course people may have not began using certain words until recently, but I fail to see the merrit in such a point —- unless you’re confusing words with concepts. So, while the Confession may not use the words “comprehensive worldview”, it certainly offers one (well, partly comprehensive, new questions need answers, for example; new emphases need to be addressed, etc). Do you not think that the Confession makes some pretty bold worldview points? “The light of nature reveals” is pretty bold, so is “God created.” There are statements about the nature of man, and free will. Why is the Confession stepping into the modalities of freedom and undermining libertarian freedom. Do sophisticated libertarians like Robert Kane know about this? Here they are, doing their common work in the philosophy departments, putting in hours of hard thinking on the matter, and then there you are, with your “Confession” that makes a claim that has massive implications for moral responsibility and legal theory. I could, of course, keep going.

    So I have yet to get out of you what “worldviewism” is and what, exactly, is the problem with it. If you have a problem with some conceptions of them, fine, but that does nothing to undercut the view I’ve presented here. In fact, almost every claim you’ve made about the naughty aspects of “worldview” have been seen to be wide of the mark. Not even “ultra” worldviewist CVT said the things you impute to “worldviewism.” In fact, he often said the oppsite. If a paradigmatic case of a thinker who pushed a Reformed worldview escapes your criticisms, I’m left struggling to find the actual target that draws your ire. C’mon, you can tell us, you’re just critiquing James Dobson, right?

    LikeLike

22. Um, Zrim, sorry, but in case you didn’t hear, there have been CHANGES to the Confession (you don’t think the magistartes should punish blasphemers, do you) and the Confession ITSELF says that “all Confessions and Councils” may ERR. So much the worse for your “Confessional statements are not open to debate” and they all have “thus sayeth the Lord” affixed to them. Wow. Confession said it, that settles it.

    I guess I don’t this claim very cogent: “This confessional claim C may err and so is fallible, but C is the final word on the matter, C is the only right way to understand the matter, and C has “thus sayeth the Lord” afficed to it.

    Other than that, I’m afraid I don’t really get your comments about what a “worldview” says. Is this in the dictionary? Or is this “winning by stipulation?” In that case, I can stipulate that there is much room for change within a worldview, and much room for debate over the beliefs that make up a worldview. Bahnsen himself (wordviewist extraordinaire) made these claims in many places, for example, his tape series on TAG: Nuclear Strength Apologetics. Bahnsen talked about changes to his worldview and how they could be made.

    So you seem just wrong to me on so many levels.

    “And, Jeff, yes, it could very well be that it’s a matter of language getting in the way, but that has what I think is a real simple solution: if you don’t mean that “Scripture specifies every detail of life” then don’t say “Scripture is sufficient for all of life.”

    What do you make of R.S. Clark’s claim in Recovering the Reformed Confession, when he writes that it “is true that **whatever** a human being knows is conditioned by the existence of divine revelation,” and the Bible’s relevance in speaking to all of areas of life is ubiquitous; so much so that Clark could say that, “Scripture speaks **to** football games, but not **of** them” (RCC 24).

    LikeLike

23. This is all as clear as mud and is not bringing any more clarity to the topic at hand (which seems to be how worldview thinking does not clarify much), I think the point Trueman was making was that worldview thinking should take on a plural rather than a singular nature, ie., there are more than one type of Christian worldviews depending on what confession of the Church one adheres to. The idea of a singular Christian worldview is what Scott Clark calls the quest for illegitimate religious certainty and oftentimes leads to discussions which go nowhere. Confessions at least try to deal with issues on which the Church stands or falls in defense of itself against the forces that work against it (the world, the flesh and the devil). We do have to have certainty on some critical issues and we have to define clearly what those critical issues are. It is only on these issues that we can attach thus saith the Lord to. Defining what is critical is what the confessions of faith are all about. Our worldviews stem from the confessions of faith we think are more faithful to the scriptures. Worldviews do not push the thinking far enough to critical issues of the faith. Worldviews are secondary and dependent on what we think the critical issues of our confession are.

    Is cultural thinking a critical aspect of our faith? Does the scripture speak to this issue clearly? Has the Church dialoged about these issues and what conclusions has it come to?: DVD’s book on NL and the 2K’s seeks to answer that question and does a superb job of it in my insignificant opinion.

    Trueman again makes the point that the Scriptures challenge our worldviews at its very core- they should bring us to what Luther called Anfechtungen which means “something more akin to terrible dread or agonizing struggle (not despair like I said in my earlier post). The word carries terrifying existential weight” according to Trueman. It is these words from the Scriptures which we need to clarify and define and it is these which make our confession different from the world, our flesh and the devil. Our confession then envelops our worldviews and gives it more cohesive force against the forces that work against it.

    Trueman does an excellent series on “On Luther Being a Theologian” in his Reformation 21 blog.

    LikeLike

24. John

    1. I showed above how one could have “one Christian worldview” that allows for differences.

    2. To say that the belief in a “single worldview” is just a “quest for illegitimate religious certainty” is simply an assertion and an attempt to dismiss my position via a label. Indeed, I indicated above that many elements of my worldview can be debated and are not certain. Thus how could it be a QIRC?

    3. What you think are “critical issues” are *part of* your worldview.

    LikeLike

25. Paul –

    What do you actually want to *do* with your christian worldview?

    LikeLike

26. Chris,

    I don’t understand the question. We all have worldviews. What do you want to do with yours?

    LikeLike

27. Paul,

    I’m not sure that anyone here is seriously questioning that worldviewism allows for some differences. After all, this discussion was spurred by the appointment of a Roman catholic to be president of an evangelical college that is avowedly committed to worldviewism. The adherents of worldviewism at The King’s College obviously believe that their “one Christian worldview” can permit differences on certain questions, such as justification, papal authority, the mass, etc. By implication, these adherents of worldviewism are saying that Scripture is insufficiently clear about these matters to demand that one have a singular view.

    On the other hand, the proponents or worldviewism have few reservations in demanding that there is a singular Christian view of: (a) whether criminal punishment is a suitable policy means for reducing the number of abortions; (b) whether an undifferentiated cell is a human life form, the destruction of which is murder; (c) whether the civil legal benefits of marital status should be extended in some manner to committed same-sex couples; or (d) whether further cuts to the income taxes paid by wealthy Americans will necessarily spur the economy.

    Pardon me for being perplexed, but how is it that Scripture is unclear on the doctrine of justification by faith alone–a doctrine found in almost every Reformed confession–and yet is perfectly clear on complex social, legal, and economic issues? That just doesn’t wash.

    The issue is not whether or not the advocates of worldviewism allow for differences within their “one Christian worldview”. No, the issue is where they allow for differences and where they don’t. When one allows for wiggle room on central Protestant doctrines, but not on tax policy, it says something about one’s view of Christian orthodoxy. It says, in fact, that Christian orthodoxy depends on the nature of our socio-cultural activism on behalf of right-wing political causes. So, I guess I agree with Darryl: Worldviewism just seems like a high-brow rendition of holiness pietism (but with more arrogance, pride, and condescension).

    LikeLike

28. Paul, In regards to your 3 points:

    1) The point I was trying to make is that worldview thinking is more subjective then confessional thinking and carries less weight then confessions of faith do. Are you using the word worldview as a synonym of confession? To me worldview implies subjectivity where confession deals with how a particular denomination has spelled out its understanding of what the Scriptures teach. Worldview is more of an individual interpretation where confession brings the collective denomination into the interpretation. I would hope you would allow for differences in worldview since there could be as many worldviews as there are people who can interpret. Worldview thinking caters to the spirit of the times where the autonomous and fallen self dictates what the truth is and it is the self’s interpretation that is primary rather than secondary.

    2) My sentence was sloppy but the meaning could be implied in what I said as a whole. I think we are still unclear on what worldview deals with and what confessions deal with. I was saying that confessions trump our individual worldviews and are more important than our subjective worldviews. Our worldviews (individual views of reality) collide with what the scriptures teach as reality. It is this collision which produces the Anfechtungen that Luther was speaking of and which he and his cohorts tried to define in the Lutheran Confessions of the faith. Calvin and those who followed in the Reformed tradition afterwords did the same thing. Worldviews are more broad and they end up dealing with issues that are not that critical but which they give critical status to. Worldviews are more concerned with “being right” rather than with seeking the truth and trying to get it right. That is part of the quest for illegitimate religious certainty.

    3) Yes, that is what I was saying. So, what you call worldview I call confession of faith. As I said before a confession of faith carries much more weight than a individual worldview.

    LikeLike

29. Bob,

    Have you been reading this thread? The claim has been put forth that it is somehow improper or false to speak of “the Christian worldview.” And there you go again, using that term that no one has bothered to define for me, i.e., “worldviewism.”

    Of course, since I am, I guess, a proponent of “worldviewism,” and since I don’t claim that there is “a singular Christian view of” (a) – (d), then I just don’t get why empirical disconfirmation doesn’t bother you guys. Didn’t Hart say something above about reality correcting theory? Well here you have a proponent of “worldviewism” who doesn’t fall into any of the claims made about “worldviewism,” e.g., “worldviewism says that regeneration raises one’s IQ.”

    And I guess I’m as perplexed as you since I don’t think Scripture is unclear on the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and, furthermore, I don’t think it is clear on “complex social, legal, and economic issues.” I disagree with those who would deny both of the above claims I’ve made. So I’m perplexed at why painting with broad brushes became epistemically virtuous. Why don’t you anti-worldviewists claim that only some proponents of worldviewism have an over zealous and all too optimistic assessment things?

    For a specific test case, Hart had asserted that there is no such thing as a “biblical epistemology.” I then linked to a post by Dr. Anderson of RTS and asked Hart’s assessment. So far the silence has been deafening.

    It seems to me that Hart and Zrim, to name a few, have a problem with the language, ‘world and life view.’ Do they not believe they have one? What do they believe about it? Why don’t they think they have a Christian view of civil life vis-vis their doctrine of 2K and common grace? Why don’t they believe that the Bible, for instance, undercuts a very popular epistemology, e.g., “for any belief B to be justified, B must have propositional evidence in its favor.” Why don’t they think the doctrine of creation affects their view of the world? Why don’t they think that their view that mental explanations are fundamental is a slap in the face of naturalism? What of their view on freedom and moral responsibility vis-a-vis the decree of God? What about their belief in the soul? What about sin, man’s problem, and how man can escape this problem? I could go on. But you get it, right? There’s a distinction between denying that you have a worldview and the fact that many of your beliefs have metaethical, metaphysical, epistemological, political, civil, familial, etc., implications. Even Darryl Hart admits as much in his book A Secular Faith, where he writes that Christianity has “very little to say about politics and the odering of society,” but that “[t]his does not mean that Christianty has nothing to say” on those matters (and others, like epsitemology, aesthetics, politics, etc?) (SF, p.10).

    LikeLike

30. I would also agree with what Bob said so clearly. Worldviews have a tendency to make critical what is not that critical and that is what the quest for illegitimate religious certainty does with non-critical issues.

    LikeLike

31. John,

    1) That’s an assertion. The Confession may err, and so may many of the beliefs of my worldview. However, almost all of my worldview beliefs I take it that I *know* or at least believe with warrant.

    I am not using worldview as a synonym for confession. The Confessional statements (that I accept) are *part of* my worldview.

    I also don’t think worldviews are as subjective and individualistic as you think. As Van Til said, we do not choose our epistemology as we choose hats. Often, we “catch” our worldview from our surrounding environment, culture, upbringing, etc.

    2) I grant that the Bible clashes with many beliefs the unregenerate man holds. When he becaomes a Christian he has a massive shift in worldviews.

    I don’t know who you’re thinking of when you say “worldviews are more concerned with being right.”

    By worldview one thing I mean is that there is no perspectiveless stance. Relativism can be avoided when you make the distinction between global and local prespectivelessness. “Neutrality” or “objectivity” can also be achieved, in a sense, when you distinguish between rational and psychological bias, and, again, local and global stances.

    As far as what Christianity gives me, it gives me a whole bunch. The revealed system of truth has implications that carry over into epistemology, ethics, moral responsibility, metaphysics, and even history. It often does this at the *meta* level, however. The benefit of this is that it allows for all kind of differences within those differences. Take the decree and moral responsibility/freedom for instance. The Bible lays out some constraints. Nothing can happen contrary to God’s decree. Everything God decrees will come to pass. The decree + secondary causes (to use the language of the confession) are sufficient for an action to take place. Necessarily, if God decrees that X will happen, then necessarily X will happen. Man is morally responsible for his actions. God is not the author of sin.

    Okay, so those are some truths us Reformed hold to. Those truths hem us in. But there are a wide variety of positions within the broader category. Many of the older Reformed, for example, held to classical compatibilism/hypothetical compatibilism to explain the relationship against the charges of Arminians, Romanists, etc., that it made God the author of sin, that it made man a puppet, etc. No doubt the Reformers held to this view because it was the best philosophical theory of the day. And to this day it seems that most Reformed hold to classical compatibilism. For all I know, that was the view of the confession too. But I think classical compatibilism is severely flawed. It has some big problems. I think the best view on offer is something like semi-compatibilism. And Reformed had better shore things up here or risk some severe blows to their theology. Moreover, we know that libertarianism cannot be true of freedom and that ought-implies-can cannot be true in the real of moral responsibility. These are major legal and metaphysical issues and the Confession commits Reformed to taking a stance on the matter. But since things are connected, these legal and metaphysical issues branch off into many other areas, like ethics, epistemology, and even science (e.g., is indeterminism true at the quantum level, or is it only an epistemological determinism? Many quantum physicists would say that there is an indeterminism at the quantum level, but how would this “fit” with “God ordains whatsoever comes to pass?”)

    So, guys, try as you might, you just can’t escape it.

    LikeLike

32. John Yeazel says:
    August 27, 2010 at 5:18 pm
    I would also agree with what Bob said so clearly. Worldviews have a tendency to make critical what is not that critical and that is what the quest for illegitimate religious certainty does with non-critical issues.

    **************

    But John, you got QIRC from R.S. Clark. He’s the guy who said that it “is true that **whatever** a human being knows is conditioned by the existence of divine revelation,” and the Bible’s relevance in speaking to all of areas of life is ubiquitous; so much so that Clark could say that, “Scripture speaks **to** football games, but not **of** them” (RCC 24).

    This is worldviewism. Is Clark guilty of QIRC here? Or does he not count because he’s “one of us?”

    LikeLike

33. John said,

    “Worldviews are more concerned with “being right” rather than with seeking the truth and trying to get it right.”

    I take it that you guys are all arguing with me because you think you are right and I am wrong?

    LikeLike

34. Paul,

    So, what you are saying is that our individual world views can trump confessions of faith if they are interpreting the scriptures more faithfully than the confessions are. I suppose that is a possibility but it is one that should be discussed among the denomination powers that be. That is what Luther had to do but his problem was that there were no confessions to refer to when he was debating with his Catholic and Anabaptist adversaries. What Hart and Clark are trying to do is bring the discussion back to the confessions of faith and then deal with problems in the confessions as we get more clarity. At least that is what I am interpreting them as saying. You do bring up some interesting questions though. I would challenge the confessions of faith of my denomination with much fear and trepidation though and you do not seem to have that same fear and trepidation in your assessment of the confessions. I find this attitude common in many of those who do not put much weight in confessions of faith.

    You bring up interesting problems in the decree/moral responsibility debate and this is surely one of the main objections by Arminians to the Calvinistic view in this matter. We Lutherans have a different take on this then the Calvinists do. I am sure you are aware of that. This was one of the two main issues that split the Calvinists and the Lutherans. The other being the finite not able to contain the infinite and the implications for the Lords Supper- Christ being ubiquitous after ascending into heaven. The Calvinists rejected this.

    LikeLike

35. Paul,

    Truth seeking is tricky business and we easily deceive ourselves that we possess the truth when we really carry around in us many ideas that need reforming and tweaking. It is a continual process of Afechtungen. Our views collide with God’s views and God wins. Or in the words of John Melencamp I fought the Law and the Law won. This then leads us to the sweet words of promise in the Gospel.

    LikeLike

36. Paul,

    I will let Scott Clark deal with that question

    LikeLike

37. Jeff, I don’t think we are closer. I think Zrim’s point is well said. Why say the Bible speaks to all of life when you qualify it in a way that leaves us thinking it doesn’t really speak to all of life. Like worldviewism, it seems much more inspirational than real.

    Paul, you said you read DVD. I’d have thought that you might have backed away from some of Van Til’s language because DVD shows that Van Til overlooks important features of NL and 2k. Now maybe you think DVD is wrong. That’s fine. But which is it? Did DVD describe Van Til correctly? If not, how.

    My problem with worldview is that it is a construction of specific historical contexts. One is Hegelian — not the best for Christian purposes. The other is Dooeyweerd — not good for NL or 2k purposes.

    And then there is the failure of one worldview advocate to say anything compelling about the created order. Whenever I read appeals to it, it sounds like special pleading for Christians. Does Leon Kass have a Christian worldview? Wendell Berry? I doubt it. But do they say things far more important that worldview folks? Yes.

    LikeLike

38. Paul,

    Yes, I am quite aware of those changes made to the confessions. It’s the local theocrats who actually seem to forget. I understand you want to impugn what I am saying as some form of confessional fundamentalism, but my point about the confessions presumes a high view of them (which is why I qualified it with “to the extent that it is consistent with Scripture”), which is different from an infallible view of them. I understand the confessions to be binding and authoritative, not merely guides.

    If you want to enlist RSC for worldviewism I suspect you’ll have as hard a time as the theonomists did enlisting CVT. For my part, I’m not as wild about the “speaks to but not of” language as I am of the Reformed narcissism formula: “I am Reformed; I think X; therefore X is Reformed.” I’m convinced that this form of narcissism is what’s really at play in Reformed worldviewism. Paleocalvinist 2Kers are not denying that even we have a worldview informed by holy writ as if faith is somehow hermetically sealed off from life, but the point is to distinguish that from the Reformed narcissism of neo-Calvinists. We readily admit that we necesarily bring faith into the public square with us. The difference is that we don’t agree with the neo-Calvinist that otherworldly faith necessarily implies certain conclusions about this-worldly problems.

    Where the neo thinks wearing his faith on his sleeve is a virtue, the paleo thinks it vice.

    LikeLike

39. DVD,

    If I have backed away from some of CVT’s language that doesn’t mean I walked away from all of it. So the statements I employed here I affirm. Which ones did you think DVD rebutted? Which CVT statements did I make in this thread that either you or DVD rebutted?

    Your problem wiht worldviews, if I even grant it, is to make a fallacious appeal to the genetic fallacy? At any rate, which claims did I make, or did Dr. Anderson in the post I linked to, that were “Hegelian or Dooeyweerdian?” Besides that, why would you mention special pleading in the same post you egregiously beg the question? To say that the Christian worldview is simply “a construction” is to beg one of the crucial questions of the debate.

    And what in the world are you talking about a worldview advocate saying anything compelling about the created order? First, what you find compelling is often a function of your own worldview. Second, I’ve been pointing out and highlighting the salient feature of worldviews to make meta-level claims. Third, what do you do with Kurt Wise, a worldview advocate? He got his PhD at Harvard under Gould in geology. Are you saying that he’s said nothing compelling about the created order? Fouth, take worldview advocates who argue for natural law. Isn’t pointing out that the created order is made for a *purpose* and that this irreducible teleology permeates the created order and is such that we can all appeal to it in the area of public morals rather than pointing to specific bible texts, to point out something compelling about the created order? Or can worldviewers only appeal to something like Theonomy? Talk about special pleading. Might as well throw in No True Scotsman too.

    Lastly, when you say,

    Why say the Bible speaks to all of life when you qualify it in a way that leaves us thinking it doesn’t really speak to all of life. Like worldviewism, it seems much more inspirational than real.

    What do you make of the claim by your fellow anti-worldviewist and 2Ker and Confessionalist, R.S. Clark? He’s the guy who said that it “is true that **whatever** a human being knows is conditioned by the existence of divine revelation,” and the Bible’s relevance in speaking to all of areas of life is ubiquitous; so much so that Clark could say that, “Scripture speaks **to** football games, but not **of** them” (RCC 24).”

    Boy, sounds like the non-worldviewers are more worldviewish than the worldviewers. Now that paradox and mystery is how you do some serious theology of the cross.

    LikeLike

40. Zrim, thanks for your unsubstantiated opinions, again.

    Of course, I didn’t enlist R.S. Clark as a worldviewer, or CVT as a theonomist. In fact, I assumed the opposite. I then wondered what the heck you were complaining about when non-worldviewers sound more worldviewy than worldviewers.

    ” Paleocalvinist 2Kers are not denying that even we have a worldview informed by holy writ as if faith is somehow hermetically sealed off from life, but the point is to distinguish that from the Reformed narcissism of neo-Calvinists. We readily admit that we necesarily bring faith into the public square with us. The difference is that we don’t agree with the neo-Calvinist that otherworldly faith necessarily implies certain conclusions about this-worldly problems.”

    Oh, so you are a worldviewer. It’s just when you do it, it’s kosher. Anyway, where di I say “otherworldly faith necessarily implies certain conclusions about this-worldly problems.” You keep beating them straw men, Steve. You should do a tag team even with Dr. Hart. Both of you can beat down straw men and then chest bump each other after the match.

    LikeLike

41. In my August 27, 2010 at 8:49 pm post, I meant to address it to Dr. Hart. Sorry.

    LikeLike

42. John,

    “You bring up interesting problems in the decree/moral responsibility debate and this is surely one of the main objections by Arminians to the Calvinistic view in this matter. We Lutherans have a different take on this then the Calvinists do.”

    My point was *illustriative*. Of course, I could do similar things with sections of the Confession you do agree with, or with your own Confessions. I could show the implications of some of the statements that require you to take a side in debates among philosophers, neurologists, anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists, to name a few. This yarn Dr. Hart is spinning just doesn’t live up to reality. Didn’t he say something about reality affecting theory? Why is Darryl tennaciously holding on to his presuppoisitions? What a Dooeyweerdian that guy is.

    LikeLike

43. “Where the neo thinks wearing his faith on his sleeve is a virtue, the paleo thinks it vice.”

    Ironically, this position of Zrim’s he thinks he gets from the Bible’s teaching on the two kingdoms and how we conduct ourselves in them. By not wearing his faith on his sleeve, he’s wearing it on his sleeve. Wait, let me guess the response: “That’s a paradox, Paul, you mean logician!”

    LikeLike

44. ” I understand you want to impugn what I am saying as some form of confessional fundamentalism, but my point about the confessions presumes a high view of them (which is why I qualified it with “to the extent that it is consistent with Scripture”), which is different from an infallible view of them. I understand the confessions to be binding and authoritative, not merely guides.”

    Yeah, well, my worldview beliefs are authoritative so long as they are true.

    LikeLike

45. How Your Theology Shapes Your Worldview, by Michael Horton

    http://web.archive.org/web/20001209235500/www.alliancenet.org/pub/mr/mr92/1992.02.MarApr/mr9202.msh.theology.html

    LikeLike

46. Paul,

    I am confused in regards to the main points you are trying to get across. What is it about the Confessions as authoritative and binding that you do not agree with? What type of yarn is Darryl Hart spinning? How does a worldview differ from a confession of faith? I do not think you are defining your terms clearly and therefore it is difficult to follow exactly what you are trying to say. You seem to think that confessions are not trustworthy and therefore cannot be binding. Our own worldviews, when they are true, are more authoritative then confessions of faith? You seem to have more trouble affirming the authority of a confession then you do with your own worldview when you are sure it is true. Why is your own worldview more sure and true then a confession of faith? What is your problem with confessionalists? And what is the point of your last post, How Your Theology Shapes Your Worldview?

    LikeLike

47. Zrim: It seems to me that a worldview different from a confession. The former is creation, the latter redemption. True enough, there may appear to be some overlap, but that seems to be the very reason to carefully distinguish between the two. A confession says that there really is only one right way to understand a thing and other ways are wrong (e.g. Trinity, baptism, the relation of faith to justification, etc.) Worldviews don’t really do that, they don’t have a “(to the extent that it is consistent with Scripture) thus saith the Lord” affixed.

    Ding, ding ding! We agree. There’s the RPW for ya. (I don’t think Frame fully gets this right in the essay, BTW. He doesn’t explain carefully enough how the RPW for worship and the “RPW” for life are different).

    Zrim: It seems to me that the problem is that worldviewism wants to apply confessionalism to that which is open to debate, which is really just a variant of confusing creation with redemption.

    I don’t think the problem is that global. It may be for some. But in most cases, I think the problem is more local: people confuse their own ideas for the clear teaching of Scripture. That’s described by the term “illegitimate foreclosure.”

    If Scripture proscribes theft, then I mayn’t steal, whether in the one kingdom or the other. The issue isn’t creation v. redemption, it’s “clear command of Scripture.”

    But now … is it OK to take a donut from the box in the teacher’s lounge?

    In addressing that question, I’m not going to consider whether this is a creational matter or a redemptional matter — I’m instead going to consider, “Is this a species of theft?”

    And if there’s some room for doubt, then there’s liberty; if not, then not.

    Zrim: [Here] is a real simple solution: if you don’t mean that “Scripture specifies every detail of life” then don’t say “Scripture is sufficient for all of life.” At the very least, you should be able to see how the language is quite puzzling and dies the death of a thousand qualifications. Better to say that general revelation is sufficient for civil tasks and special revelation is sufficient for ecclesiastical tasks. But since you object to this language and prefer the more puzzling lingo, it must mean that it’s more than “mere language.” Can you at least see how, by this, it appears that what you mean is that the Bible does indeed provide for every detail of life, no matter how much you protest to the contrary?

    I can, indeed, see what you’re saying, and I do see the weakness of the language. The word “sufficient” in standard parlance means “it’s enough.” Its default meaning is exhaustively sufficient. Since Scripture clearly does not tell us how to change a tire, it is not “sufficient” in that sense for all of life.

    Let me defend the language for minute, tweak your nose for a minute, and then work towards better language.

    Defense: In my read of the Catechism, the goal of man is not to change tires or to build cities, but to glorify God. For that task, Scripture is sufficient. So: “Scripture is sufficient for all of life” is an accurate, though somewhat cryptic, way to describe our situation.

    Tweak: I’ll drop my language if you drop yours. Who is it that is always saying that general revelation is “sufficient”? It’s clearly not exhaustively sufficient in the way that you are requiring from my language. There’s stuff we just don’t know, and may never know. Even more so, general revelation is particularly weak in the area of ethics. What *ought* we to do? Unlike the situation in chemistry and physics, ethics has gotten more fragmented as a discipline. GR is failing in this area.

    Movement: “Scripture is sufficient for man to achieve his end: to live his life to the glory of God.”

    Better?

    LikeLike

48. Bob: On the other hand, the proponents or worldviewism have few reservations in demanding that there is a singular Christian view of: (a) whether criminal punishment is a suitable policy means for reducing the number of abortions; (b) whether an undifferentiated cell is a human life form, the destruction of which is murder; (c) whether the civil legal benefits of marital status should be extended in some manner to committed same-sex couples; or (d) whether further cuts to the income taxes paid by wealthy Americans will necessarily spur the economy.

    That’s factually false, actually. I would describe myself as a worldviewist in the sense that I believe (a) everyone has a worldview, and (b) Christians are obligated to bound theirs by Scripture.

    When I teach Ethics and we touch on the first three issues (economics is beyond the scope of the class), I challenge the students’ thinking on those issues and ask them to use Scripture in a robust way to move beyond the knee-jerk positions they get from Fox News (or CNN).

    To do a Christian worldview properly means, among other things, to be suspicious of easy answers.

    LikeLike

49. Zrim: I understand the confessions to be binding and authoritative, not merely guides.

    This is an interesting point for another time, but in my view the Confession disagrees with you. Specifically, it appears to me that WCoF 1.9, 1.10, and 31.3 rule out the use of the confessions as anything more than a help.

    The situation is complicated for elders (such as myself), because we take a vow to uphold the Confession. So I would say that the Confession is particularly binding on me because of my vow — but my vow presupposes that I’ve read Scripture, come to a decision about its teaching, and affirm that Yes, the Confession contains that teaching.

    But from the perspective of being a Christian, the Confession is not binding, except insofar as it gets the Scripture right (which of course, I believe that it does).

    JRC

    LikeLike

50. John,

    Is the problem on my end or yours? Because for the life of me I can’t figure out how you’re getting your reading of my comments. You certainly don’t quote them, analyze them, and show where the problem is. I also wonder if you’ve read every single comment in this thread. Many of my arguments ar tu quoque. If Zrim says says that confessions differ from worldviews because worldview beliefs can err, then what’s the problem when I point out that Confessions may err? If Zrim and Hart complain that “worldviewism” says that the Bible speaks to all areas of life, and that’s a problem, I then quote a non-worldviewer’s claim that the Bible speaks to so many things, it even speaks to football games. Why am I considered anti-confessional when I simply quoted the Confession’s own statement about itself.

    The yarn Dr. Hart is spinning is about his claim that there is no biblical view of X (epistemology, metaphysics, etc), and that we shouldn’t stick our noses in non-theological matters a couple statements in the Confession, Dr. Hart was forced to run to the quantium physicists and tell them that their findings of quantum indeterminism is false. Dr. Hart needs to run to the legal theorists and tell them that “ought implies can” is an improoper criteria upon which to hold people morally responsible. Dr. Hart has a worldview, and he has a Christian worldview, and the implications of what he self-consciously expresses cross over in many matters he chides worldviewers for getting into. Dr. Hart doesn’t want to think about the implications of what he confesses. For him, ignorance is bliss.

    I agree that the Confessions are binding andauthoritative so long as they properly summarize the Bible. If the Bible contradicts the Confession at any point, then the Confession allows me to drop that Confessional statement from my system of beliefs. So, of course, I never said, ot implied, that “Confessions are not trustworthy and so cannot be binding.” This is upsetting because you huffed about how unclear I am yet you’re missreading what I wrote and not even bothering to interact with my comments directly. Our worldviews, to the extent that they are true, are just as binding as the Confession is, to the extent that it is true. Truth is binding, John. And as Christians, we have an obligation to believe the truth. We have a moral and a rational obligation to believe the truth and to avoid falsehood.

    My problem with “Confessionalists” is the rampent anti-intellectualism I have seen from almost all of them who bother posting on the internet. Their anti-apologetics and anti-philosophy comments are troubling too. For example, When Dr. Hart was pushing for a 24/7 instruction in the Confessions, I asked him about training his members in apologetics. Regurgitating the Confession won’t do you diddly when (a) atheists challenge your faith and ask for the *reason* for the hope, (b) when other religions criticize your faith, and (c), when Christians take issue with statements of faith. It is utterly embarrassing to watch these “Confessioanlists” handle other theological positions within Christianity. I have been red faced and embarrassed when I have seen Zrim mention and try to critique Arminianism. I was slack-jawed to watch R.S. Clark’s total butchering of Molinism. It was so bad that some Reformed philosophers had to email prominent molinists and tell them not to judge all Reformed by Clark’s performance.

    Lastly, my last point should have been obvious: Horton talked about how theology shapes a worldview, how theological claims seep into and have implications for non-theological/non-confessional claims. If you don’t think it is a problem having a worldview, and you think all men have worldviews, then what is all this business critiquing “worldviewism.” I have been trying to get at this from the beginning.

    LikeLike

51. Jeff & Paul,

    So, why is it necessary to speak of a singular Christian worldview? If worldviewism allows for the degree of differences that you allege, then the language of “one Christian worldview” seems wholly unhelpful.

    On the other hand, I’m not sure that advocates of worldviewism permit as much variation on social issues as you think. I regularly peruse World Magazine, the definitive journal of worldviewism. From reading the pages of this publication, I’m not so sure that advocates of worldviewism are willing to allow for much difference of opinion on social and economic issues within their “one Christian worldview”. I also get unwanted emails from the Christian Worldview Network, which also seems to be equally as narrow on social and economic issues.

    LikeLike

52. opps, I left out a comment in my second to last paragraph. So when I pointed out the challenges to the faith and the need for apologetic instruction, Dr. Hart accused me of not believing in perserverance of the saints. Apparently this “Confessionalist” doesn’t believe 1. Pet 3:15 nor that God works through means.

    LikeLike

53. Bob,

    It isn’t “necessary” to speak of a Christian worldview. Where did I imply that it was “necessary.” However, why do you speak of “Christianity” or “the faith”.

    On the other hand, since I am an advocate of worldviewism, and I allow for variation on social issues, then you claim is false. In fact, all of the *sophisticated* proponents of worldviewism “allow for differences on social matters.” Appalachian Mountain fundies don’t count. Lastly, apparently those people think those matters are *true*, that’s where the debate should be. And, wordviews do imply more than you seem to want to say they do for social issues. I quoted Darryl Hart’s Secular Faith in my first post here. He said the Bible does say *some* things that apply to politics etc. Those things imply more than some people are willing to claim. Usually people who can’t see so lack the requistite logical powers to draw conclusions from premises. For my view on Christ & Culture, I find a lot in common with D.A. Carson’s book on the subject, and much in common with Hunter’s To Change the World, from what I’ve read so far. I also apprecaited a lot in Secular Faith, probably more than what I disagreed with.

    LikeLike

54. Bob: So, why is it necessary to speak of a singular Christian worldview? If worldviewism allows for the degree of differences that you allege, then the language of “one Christian worldview” seems wholly unhelpful.

    It isn’t. I agree with Trueman.

    LikeLike

55. Bob: re, World Mag and Christian World View Network …

    Leave social issues alone for a moment. Aren’t there many, many pastors who preach doctrinal points you consider incorrect? And yet that doesn’t denigrate the value of doctrine, nor deny that Scripture teaches a doctrinal system.

    Maybe World Mag is just wrong at points.

    LikeLike

56. Paul,

    I was not huffing and puffing, just trying to clarify and define, it sometimes takes awhile to sink in and it seemed to me you were not being direct but beating around the bush so to speak. However, your last post helped me to see more clearly your problems with some of the “Confessionalist” positions or lack thereof. Actually, I do not hear enough critique and you bring up some things which should be thought about on my part- especially this: “My problem with “Confessionalists” is the rampent anti-intellectualism I have seen from almost all of them who bother posting on the internet. Their anti-apologetics and anti-philosophy comments are troubling too. For example, When Dr. Hart was pushing for a 24/7 instruction in the Confessions, I asked him about training his members in apologetics. Regurgitating the Confession won’t do you diddly when (a) atheists challenge your faith and ask for the *reason* for the hope, (b) when other religions criticize your faith, and (c), when Christians take issue with statements of faith. It is utterly embarrassing to watch these “Confessioanlists” handle other theological positions within Christianity. I have been red faced and embarrassed when I have seen Zrim mention and try to critique Arminianism. I was slack-jawed to watch R.S. Clark’s total butchering of Molinism. It was so bad that some Reformed philosophers had to email prominent molinists and tell them not to judge all Reformed by Clark’s performance.”

    Now that is much more direct and to the point. It seems that this is what you really wanted to get at the whole time. And this is pretty huffy puffy I might add. I think Hart, Clark and Zrim would take offense at you calling them “rampant anti-intellectualists.” Because they avoid philosophical categories and don’t talk much about apologetics you are calling them anti-intellectual? There has to be something more behind all of this. I think it is the challenging of the thinking of Van Til, Dooyewaard and Reformed transformationalists that DVD and confessionalists have put forth that gets to you. Anti-intellectual is more of a term for fundamentalists, Anabaptists and biblicists rather than those who adhere to the Reformed confessions and admonish others to read broadly and widely. Do you call Machen anti-intellectual too? How about Warfield?

    Why are you so bent on defending worldviewism? And why does it take on such a critical issue status with you. I think Hart answered sufficiently his problems with worldviewism but his answer did not satisfy you and you keep pressing him to read that post by Anderson.

    Also, I guess Molinism is more important than how one gets in a right relationship with God and how someone’s faith is sustained and preserved. Perhaps Dr. Clark was having a bad day and needed to brush up a bit on his understanding of Molinism. He was caught off- guard.

    I am preparing for some more condescension and an attack on my intelligence level.

    Why don’t you tell us all the perspective you are coming from and trying to defend too- that might be helpful.

    LikeLike

57. If Scripture proscribes theft, then I mayn’t steal, whether in the one kingdom or the other. The issue isn’t creation v. redemption, it’s “clear command of Scripture.”

    Jeff, you and I go out to dinner (and go Dutch, and we leave Paul to his own devices since he seems so angry and about to implode). Our bills come. I leave a prudent tip and you leave a generous one. Both prudence and generosity are virtues mined from both GR and SR. Neither of us should begrudge the other for his chosen virtue. But if either of us doesn’t pay our bills the other is obligated to call him on it, because that’s stealing and is also easily mined from both GR and SR. So it is in the public square: there are those things that are of liberty and those that are not. The problem with neo worldviewism is that it is the equivalent of me begrudging you your generous tip or you my prudent one. You don’t strike me as a guy who does this with his friends when he dines with them, so why aid and abet those who want to do it in the public square?

    Even more so, general revelation is particularly weak in the area of ethics. What *ought* we to do? Unlike the situation in chemistry and physics, ethics has gotten more fragmented as a discipline. GR is failing in this area.

    No, it isn’t. It’s perfectly sufficient. Your tweak is completely unacceptable. What I think is going on here is simply that you perceive some things going wrong in some places, so you conclude that it’s GR’s fault. This is tantamount to blaming the law instead of the sinner. But if I put rules down in my house and they get broken I punish the lawbreaker, not the law. I presume that’s what you do as well. And if so, again, you seem to speak like a neo but act like a paleo.

    LikeLike

58. Zrim: And if so, again, you seem to speak like a neo but act like a paleo.

    Well, that’s unsurprising. I’m not easy to bin, for better or worse.

    Zrim: [General Revelation is] perfectly sufficient.

    To quote Miyazaki: Nani?!?!

    There’s no way you mean that consistently. You’ve stipulated that “sufficient” means “specifies every detail.” If GR is perfectly sufficient, then every detail has been specified. There is a complete theory of everything.

    No such theory exists, nor ever will. Not even in the areas where GR is most successful, such as physics and chemistry, is there a complete theory of everything.

    In the area of paying one’s bill, the situation is much much worse. There are a whole lot of people who saying that skipping out on a bill can be the right action under some set of circumstances. Who are you to disagree? (No fair pulling the decalogue out of your sleeve. You’ve staked your epistemological grounds on GR and GR alone.)

    And most importantly: if GR were to specify every detail, your (and my) beloved liberty would *poof* go out the window. There would be specified answers for everything, and anyone at all could call us on them.

    Zrim: The problem with neo worldviewism is that it is the equivalent of me begrudging you your generous tip or you my prudent one. You don’t strike me as a guy who does this with his friends when he dines with them, so why aid and abet those who want to do it in the public square?

    I am not on board with the neos in every sense. I do believe that van Til has the right of the argument: Scripture norms everything.

    But as I’ve explained, that norming is sufficient only in the sense of achieving the chief end of man, NOT for providing a theory of everything.

    If this helps this cause or that cause, I can’t help it. It’s *true*, and that’s that.

    And in fact, the normative nature of Scripture comes with freedom packaged inside. Why are you and I *obligated* to be silent where Scripture is silent? Because passages like Rom 14 norm our behavior and require us to grant liberty to the other.

    As much as you are upset about importing Scripture into the commons, it is the very act of applying Scripture to all of life that demands liberty.

    You don’t get that kind of liberty in China.

    LikeLike

59. Molinism (ˈmɒlɪnɪzəm)
    — n
    RC Church a doctrine of grace that attempts to reconcile the efficacy of divine grace with human free will in responding to it
    [C17: named after Luis de Molina (1535–1600), Spanish Jesuit who taught such a doctrine]

    Now that is interesting and worthy of critical issue status. What was wrong with Clark’s understanding of this?

    Paul- please expand on what you mean by the accusation that “Confessionalists” are anti-intellectual.

    How are “Confessionalists” lacking in defending their positions with other theological positions in Christianity?

    And why do think “Confessionalists” are anti-philosophy and anti-apologetics?

    Those are critiques that I would like to know more about- perhaps I am guilty of them too and need to change some of my thinking.

    There still seems to be a lot more behind this than I am aware of.

    LikeLike

60. John,

    I see that I cannot comment anymore since that means I am bent on defending worldviewism and elevating it to a status above the gospel. That’s what I love about you Confessionalists. So, go back to critiquing worldviewism, ’cause you can do that without being “so bent” on critiquing worldviewism, and when you guys spend all your time critiquing worldviewism and “culture warriors” you can do that without elevating your criticisms above the gospel.

    LikeLike

61. Wow, Zrim thought my August 28, 2010 at 6:51 am was angry and about to implode?

    Zrim also makes another claim about “worldviewism” and what it does without quoting any worldviewer to that effect. And, what the heck does he mean? He uses an example of something that cannot be true (i.e., prudent or gratuitous tipping) and tries to claim this is analogous to a “worldviewer” saying that Zrim is wrong about some X, where that X is something that can be true or false. Where that X has arguments that can be given for and against it such that it can be more reasonable to accept the conclusion than to deny it (or vice versa). Zrim let the cat out of the bag, he thinks all the issues worldviewists talk about are matters of taste. He thinks that claiming that some Christian is wrong for thinking it is permissible for women to have abortion is on par with thinking it is wrong to like chocolate ice cream.

    LikeLike

62. John,

    Here’s the Clark post on Molinism:

    http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/molinism-and-westminster-seminary-california/

    Notice my comments as well as several Molinists who come in and are “horrified” at Clark’s butchering.

    And, when Dr. Hart says churches need to teach the Confession for Sunday school 24/7, and I raise my hand and wonder about apologetics training, and Hart says, “What, you don’t believe in the doctrine of perseverance?” I call that anti-apologetic. I have also seen Zrim try and interact with an atheist, Zrim tried to drop some names of New Atheists and totally butchered them. The atheist had to thank me for setting Zrim straight. And again, I read some comments about Arminianism at Zrim’s blog. He totally butchered Arminianism. I once saw a baptist argue with Zrim and asked Zrim to demonstrate that the Confession’s claims about baptism were biblical. Zrim said he just presupposed the Confession and wasn’t a bible scholar and so could show that. He just trusted others did the work for him. Zrim himself admits he never ever ever studies apologetics, logic, or philosophy. He only reads stuff on 2K, evangelicalism, and the Confession. Zrim doesn’t know how to exegete and owns no exegetical commentaries. He then takes pride in that.

    I don’t mean to pick on Zrim, he’s simply an example of what we see coming from most internet 2K warrior.

    That’s not angry it is, as Forde suggests in his commentary on Luther’s Theology of the Cross, just calling a spade a spade.

    LikeLike

63. Zrim,

    Have you seen what’s on John’s MySpace page?

    “Strong convinctions about reality and life in general Theologically oriented in my thinking- view reality from a biblical perspective

    Read more: http://www.myspace.com/lutherman3821#ixzz0xvohy4bj”

    So, do you only have a problem with worldviewers when they disagree with you? That’s rather petty, and arrogant.

    LikeLike

64. Where does the Confession critique, disparage, or condemn “worldviewism”? Where does the Bible? Why is Zrim holding my gratuitous tipping over my head on matters he has no Confessional or Biblical warrant for? Zrim keeps refuting himself.

    LikeLike

65. Paul says; “I see that I cannot comment anymore since that means I am bent on defending worldviewism and elevating it to a status above the gospel. That’s what I love about you Confessionalists. So, go back to critiquing worldviewism, ’cause you can do that without being “so bent” on critiquing worldviewism, and when you guys spend all your time critiquing worldviewism and “culture warriors” you can do that without elevating your criticisms above the gospel.”

    You are putting words in my mouth that I did not say- I said you were making worldviewism a critical issue, I said nothing about elevating it above the Gospel. I do not think you are doing that. I still have not pinpointed why you think worldview thinking is a better way to defend the faith or articulate the faith then the way confessionalists do. We have kind of circled the territory but are not into concrete specifics yet. That is what I am trying to get at. Perhaps I too have gone about it in a rather roundabout way. I have found you have to be patient on the internet and it usually takes awhile to get at the real issues. And many times that is never reached. I am interested in pursuing this though because, as I said, I do not hear many critiques of the “Confessionalist” point of view. Luther was always interested in the rebuttals to his theological statements. That is where most of the learning and growth in understanding takes place. That is what is most important to me. As you said, I too want to know the truth and then know how my thinking is veering from it or in opposition to it.

    I think we are making progress though- perhaps my dullness is to blame but I am seeking to understand better.

    I am in the process of reading your Molinism post and will comment on that later.

    LikeLike

66. For Dr. Hart: What does theism have to do with math?

    Click to access Byl-realism.pdf

    LikeLike

67. John,

    You wrote to me:

    “Why are you so bent on defending worldviewism? And why does it take on such a critical issue status with you. I think Hart answered sufficiently his problems with worldviewism but his answer did not satisfy you and you keep pressing him to read that post by Anderson.

    Also, I guess Molinism is more important than how one gets in a right relationship with God and how someone’s faith is sustained and preserved. Perhaps Dr. Clark was having a bad day and needed to brush up a bit on his understanding of Molinism. He was caught off- guard.”

    So, I made comments about Molinism and in response you intimated that I put that above how one gets in a right relationship with God and how faith is preserved.

    I never said anything about worldviewism being “better” than Confessionalism. I think all men have worldviews, so to disparage them is silly to me. I think Christianity has implications for all manner of things, epistemology, math, history, metaphysics, moral responsibility, politics etc. Dr. Hart seems to suggest it does not. But, I don’t really know what he’s trying to say. I have been trying to get at just what his and Zrim’s criticism is. Is it against a subset of worldviewism? or against any claim that the Christian faith has implications for all of life? When this latter position was critiqued by them they tried to tell us that worldviewism claims that regeneration raises ones IQ. Really, John? Do you buy that? is that an honest way to go about dialogue? Or does that just upset the other side because they see you’re not taking the conversation seriously. Dr. Hart also suggested that worldviewism claims that Christians no more about everything than non-Christians. I rebutted that as well. Then, recently, Zrim places the claims of worldviewists on the same level as claims about matters of taste and convention (tipping). Again, this is wide of the mark and cannot sensibly be considered a responsible critique of worldviewism. So, here’s my basic objection: I have been asking for a project-specific critique of worldviewism. As best I have only been getting model-specific critiques of worldviewism. That is, at best, the critiques given here only rebut some *models* of worldviewism, but none of them rebut the *project* of worldviewism. So far, none of the critiques launched against worldviewism have landed in rebutting the project. Therefore, the anti-worldviewists have no argument or reason to disparage worldviewism *per se*. There has been no successful project-specific objection given.

    What’s my concern: All men have worldviews, saying you don’t doesn’t change it. The Christian faith implies a lot about life and all manner of non-kingdom-of-the-church issues. To say it doesn’t is to make false statements. So, I’d like the Reformed confessionalists here to own up to the implications of their beliefs and not make false statements. I think consistency and avoidance of falsehoods is an epistemic virtue and as such it ought to be cultivated. So, when Dr. Hart says that there is no such thing as biblical epistemology, I claim he is wrong. I then link to an argument for why he is wrong. Either rebut the argument or drop your claim. If you have an undefeated-defeater for a belief of yours, that belief is no longer warranted. For some reason, it seems like some of the folks here want to make assertions and refrain from having to actually argue for and defend their assertions. Instead, the other side is met with derision and their position is subjected to the worst form of straw men. Is this not anti-intellectualism par excellence?

    LikeLike

68. Paul says, “So, do you only have a problem with worldviewers when they disagree with you? That’s rather petty, and arrogant.”

    So, are you talking to me here Paul or Zrim? Let’s stop the name-calling or whatever it is we are doing. I am interested in understanding your point of view better. I spent a good part of my Christian life trying to develop a Christian worldview (read lots of Schaeffer, other worldview type authors and went to Calvin College where the backdrop of all my business, accounting and economics classes was neo-Calvinist cultural transformationalism of the Kuyper, Van Til and Dooyewaard type. So, it still is part of my psyche and psychological makeup. Confessionalism has only recently been a fixation of mine (probably the last three or so years). I joined on LCMS Church about 3 years ago too. l love reading Luther and am also very interested in how Calvinists and Lutherans differ and when and why they split from each other. Now, why don’t you tell me a bit of your back round so I know better who I am dealing with here.

    LikeLike

69. John,

    I was writing to Zrim. Are you going to tell Zrim to knock off the name calling (“angry” “about to implode”).

    My background: A nobody who reads.

    LikeLike

70. I also might add that I spent 1975 to 1994 faithfully attending Non-denominational charismatic Churches and for the most part not liking it very much. I read Michael Horton’s Putting Amazing Back into Grace somewhere around 1993 I believe and have been sold on Reformation theology since that time. It was like a breath of fresh air shot into my lungs. Have been an avid reader of Modern Reformation magazine and listener to the White Horse Inn since that time too.

    LikeLike

71. Paul,

    That is a cope-out. Tell me who you like to read then and whose point of view you think expresses the truth most clearly. This is like trying to find the needle in the haystack.

    LikeLike

72. My Molinism comment was done in ignorance because I was not sure what Molinism was- my bad.

    LikeLike

73. John,

    I read widely, and I’m not sure there is any single author who “expresses the truth most clearly” since the field of knowledge is so sub-divided and specialized these days.

    Here’s some of the books I’ve read:

    http://www.goodreads.com/user/show/743812

    though I haven’t kept up with it lately.

    LikeLike

74. Paul,

    Read through most of your 5 star book reviews; you obviously have a good grasp of the free will debate and the problems with determinism and human responsibility. You definitely got me interested in some of those books. There were a lot of books in your review list that got my attention. Thanks for the link.

    The Molinism and Middle Knowledge controversy is going to take me a while to grasp properly. I will have to reflect on it awhile before I make some comments.

    Your critique of Clark’s Recovering the Reformed Confession is something I am going to have to spend more time on too.

    LikeLike

75. Thanks John. Yeah, the freewill/moral responsibility debates is one of the topics I’m most interested in; obviously because of its relevance and importance for Calvinism.

    Re: Molinism, you can see Clark admit, after being forced, that he made some errors. I think he made more errors, but whatever.

    LikeLike

76. Paul,

    You criticized Zrim for not citing to a proponent of worldviewism. Why should he? After all, when someone does cite to an advocate of worldviewism, you’s shown that you feel completely free to discount that citation by suggesting that the cited source adheres to worldviewism in a different way than you do.

    So, if your “one Christian worldview” is nothing like World Magazine’s “one Christian worldview”, then I don’t see what either of you gain from this vocabulary. In my view, this language is used in an apparent attempt to bind the consciences of fellow Christians on various cultural issues. But if this isn’t what you are trying to do, then why bother with this lingo?

    Besides, Jeff’s comments make me wonder whether this isn’t implicitly a discussion about the value (or lack of value) of divine command ethics.

    LikeLike

77. Bob,

    First, I promise that I will “give” and never come back if you or Zrim can find me the worldview proponent who says that “regeneration raises the IQ.” What? You can’t? Well, you’re just going to bust my chops without busting Zrim or Darryl’s for making obviously false and outlandish claims? Do you care more about being in the in-crowd rather than truth? You see, sometimes I can spot a straw man even if it’s made of a position I disagree with. Moreover, the more substantive point I made to Zrim was obviously lost on you in your haste to be pedantic: Zrim treated advocates of worlviewism as caring about subjective matters of taste and convention and trying to enforce those subjective likes or dislikes on others. Lastly, I don’t say that the people I disagree with hold to worldviewism differently than I do, I say that not all of the *elements* of their worldview need to carry over to every one else’s. See, I probably would have never posted here if Darryl or Zrim would preface their critiques with the word “some.” But since they don’t, they give the impression that anyone who thinks there is such a thing as a Christian worldview that has implications on matters of life that the Confession does not speak about, is just obviously wrong because, after all, any one who holds to worldviewism must believe at least these two propositions: (a) regeneration raises the IQ, and (b) any Christian knows more about heart surgery than does any cardiologist. And obviously, since (a) and (b) are absurd, therefore worldviewism per se is absurd.

    Next paragraph of yours: Where did I ever say my worldview was “nothing like” the easy targets you picked for easy and intellectually lazy refutation? Indeed, didn’t I earlier point out you could have the same family even though some people look really different than others? That’s because there’s a “family resemblance.” To your last point: some cultural issues are conscious is to be bound on, not others. So, “on various cultural issues” is pretty vague, Bob.

    Your last paragraph: And your comments make me wonder if you are interested in moving the discussion forward and engaging in substantive issues. You also make me wonder if you even know what Divine Command Ethics is. But the bright spot here is that if this is normally how you toss them, can we get you to pitch for the opposing team at my next softball game? I need some nice slow pitches right down the middle.

    LikeLike

78. Paul, what is your worldview of language? When did I ever deny the perseverance of the saints? Your worldview is working over time. And this is one of the problems of worldview/philosophy types, they twist to find the subtexts and then accuse you of holding the sub-sub-text? What is the worldview of the ninth commandment?

    As for the genetic fallacy business, the origin of a word can be telling. It is not conclusive. But when Alisdair McIntyre critiques the word “values” as the product of late modernity’s rendering of virtue, I take notice. Values is a word I don’t like to use to convey convictions or standards. “Family values” is a concession to modernity. I’d make a similar point about “worldview.”

    But if you want to increase the speed of the bandwagon, hold on and go for it. Just make sure that you find room there for Chuck Colson and all the inspired listeners to Breakpoint.

    As for the link to Anderson, I wasn’t impressed. I’ve been studying this stuff for a long time. One link isn’t going to show me the error of my ways.

    And please do back off with the anti-intellectual nonsense. I get it. You know philosophy. It doesn’t make you brilliant. Nor does it make you right.

    LikeLike

79. Darryl,

    I appreciate you allowing Paul and I hashing this stuff out on your web site without intervention on your part or kicking us off your site (you probably were out living your life like most people do on a beautiful end of summer weekend-at least the weather was beautiful here in the Chicago area).

    LikeLike

80. Dr. Hart,

    I never said you denied the perserverance of the saints. Is this one of the problems with worldview denier/historian types? They misread the situation and then run with their misreading all the way to the finish line.

    As for the origin business, you missed the substantive point. I never denied that the *concept* of worldview thinking was around quite long before the *word*. Read Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, &c. Most people recognize they were developing self-conscious worldviews. Man, for as long as he has been around, as tried to form a consistent interpretation of reality. Indeed, many have simply used “worldview” as a synomym for “philosophy,” or as the goal of philosophy. In countless books by secular scientists we read of, say, the “worldview of the primitave world.” Indeed, any study in comparative religions should disabuse you of the notion that worldview thinking was absent until Kant. So, all men have and have had worldviews. They organized all of life into a contistent interpretation. So as William James once put it: “Let me repeat once more that man’s vision is the grat fact about him. Who cares for Carlyle’s reasons, or Schopenhauer’s, or Spencer’s? A philosophy is the expression of man’s intimate character, and all the definitions of the universe are but the deliberately adopted reactions of human characters upon it.” But if you’re saying, with McIntyre, that ‘worldview’ is simply a “rendering” of something else that exists, then fine. I won’t quibble with you wanting to call it something different. But, notice there’s still an “it” to be called something. So did you have another term in mind? How about ‘Hartview?’

    As for your response to the link to Anderson, I wasn’t impressed. There, that was easy. Could I bother you to throw some crumbs to this plebe and tell me why? I also made some arguments from the Confession and propositions you confess implicating you in taking sides on metaphsyical, ethical, and scientific issues. Tell me, Dr. Hart, does your confession demand that you deny the findings of quantum physicists who argue that there is indeterminism at the quantum level? I think it does and would love to hear your response if you disagree (and I’m sure the Reformed world at large would like to see your interpreation of “decrees whatsoever comes to pass”). So here you are having to shout down the scientists like the 6 day fundamentalists.

    And I think you’re more anti-apologetic and anti-philosophical than anti-intellectual. Zrim is more of the anti-intellectual, and I cited the evidence for that conclusion. And please knock off the “worldviewism says that regeneration raises the IQ and says any given Christian is right about any given topic over against any given non-Christian expert on that topic.” I get it. You know history. It doesn’t make you brilliant. Nor does it make you right. Now, do I need to drive down to Hillsdale and buy you a beer? Or should I do that when you come to Grand Rapids to watch a Whitecaps game?

    LikeLike

81. Paul,

    I’ll take that beer if Hart rejects the offer- I have no problems with crumbs but do have problems with sloppy seconds.

    LikeLike

82. Paul: Tell me, Dr. Hart, does your confession demand that you deny the findings of quantum physicists who argue that there is indeterminism at the quantum level? I think it does and would love to hear your response if you disagree

    I disagree, speaking as a physics educator and an amateur quantum enthusiast.

    There is no obstacle, none whatsoever, to saying that indeterminacy is a fundamental feature of observational science. In fact, that very fact makes room for acknowledging God’s hand in maintaining the universe.

    The opposite position, the “hidden variable” determinacy position, makes the world safe for deism. Not to mention that it has, so far, been an experimental failure.

    You may object, as Sproul did, that quantum indeterminacy somehow says something about metaphysical reality. It does not. Since Mach and Einstein, it has been clearly understood that science is limited to the observational world and cannot make or evaluate metaphysical claims.

    QI is nothing more nor less than this proposition: “The collapse of a waveform to a particular possible state is not determined by any observable variables in the past or present.”

    There’s nothing in there for a Biblical, confessional Christian to object to.

    —

    Paul, if I may, as a fellow world-viewist: Dr. Hart and Zrim are trying to help the church by resisting triumphal postmillenialism. Specifically, they want to avoid the Corinthian “theology of glory” that could lead us to treating Christianity as a means for improving our worldly goods. They want us to avoid investing in transforming this life as our primary spiritual occupation.

    Obviously, I don’t agree with them about some of their formulations. But I do respect what they are trying to do, and I also have found their critique helpful in sharpening my thoughts about, say, the Glenn Beck rally, or saying the pledge of allegiance in my Christian school.

    I say this just to say: the Hart/Zimrich game plan is not an anti-intellectual one. It is an oppositional one. When you read Hart’s academic writings, he’s a very different writer, a cogent and insightful writer. On the blog, he throws out outrageous statements.

    I respect their game plan (despite being frustrated at times with it), and urge you to do so also. My own way of making peace with it has been to be outrageous right back. 🙂

    JRC

    LikeLike

83. Jeff,

    I understand the distinction between epistemological indeterminism and metaphysical indeterminism. That’s one way to square it. I myself accept the findings as showing epistemological indeterminism (for humans). However, many, many physicists hold that what we see is *metaphysical* indeterminism a la Polkinghorne, Ewart, Shimony. Moreover, some of the best metaphysicians of the day use the findings of quantum indeterminism to argue for libertarian free will, a la Kane, and so do many Christian philosophers take the findings as showing ontological indetermninism, a la Craig, Moreland, Plantinga, etc. In fact, I don’t have the actual numbers, but I would be willing to bet that the majority of physicists are not confusing “not knowing the cause of an event” with “the even not having a cause.” They explicitly affirm the latter. So they reason, “We can’t know both an electron’s position and momentum because electrons do not have simultaneous determinate positions and momentums.” Their argument is not that we do not know what the quantum causes are, it’s that there are no quantum causes. So, as Shimony said in his article “The Reality of the Quantum World” in Scientific American, “Furthermore, since the outcome of a measurement of an objectively indefinite quantity is not determined by the quantum state, and yet the quantum state is the complete bearer of information about the system, the outcome is strictly a matter of objective chance — not just a matter of chance in the sense of unpredictability by the scientist.”

    So, I know there’s a way to understand or view the evidence in a way compatible with God’s exhaustive decree of whatsoever comes to pass — and that way requires you to take your worldview and tell the majority of physicists, or at least a very many of the top physicists in the world, that they are wrong.

    Also, it seems you’re taking the position of scientific anti-realism a la van Fraassan. But I highly doubt Hart would take that way out, and if he does that means his worldview commits him to scientific anti-realism. And, of course, if you’re not an anti-realist, “observational” is a slippery word in the philosophy of science.

    —

    I appreciate you trying to help Dr. Har and Zrim, but don’t you think a better way to go about their task and mission as Lord Protector of Amillennialism (which I consider my eschatology) is to refrain from saying things like: “Worldviewism teaches regeneration raises intelligence quotients.”

    The comments I made about anti-intellectual is borne out of several conversations with Zrim. When I gave Zrim a valid argument and deduced a conclusion from premises he accepted, he then claimed I was idolizing logic and acting like a Greek. He said the apparent contradiction I showed him was a “paradox,” however, Zrim didn’t want to accept my conclusion, so it wasn’t a “paradox.” When one accepts paradox, that means one accepts *both* of the propositions that led to the apparent contradiction. Furthermore, every time I have asked him to exegete a passage or point me to exegetical arguments for some of his non-traditional readings of certain texts, he says he doesn’t know how to do exegesis, he doesn’t own any exegetical commentaries, and he just believes his doctrines as a “presupposition” and says “other smart people believed X, and they were Confessional, therefore X is warranted.” If that’s not anti-intellectual, what is it?

    LikeLike

84. John, I thought it was going to be all of us. Zrim, Hart, you, and me. I’d let you and Zrim debate which kind of tip will be given, Hart and I can dine and dash.

    LikeLike

85. Hart’s claim about teaching church members philosophy and apologetics so they could answer objection to (a) their faith and (b) the confession as not needed because it denies perserverance of the saints was this one:

    “The funny thing about your comment is that you sound at the end more Clarkian than Van Tillian. You suggest that when people face hard questions from a Christian physicalist (will my health insurance work with him?) they have no recourse except either to plug their ears and scream, or answer with an argument about the consistency of ideas. (What happens to those poor souls who never have the chance to go to college and study epistemology? I guess we have to hope they are not physically and vocally challenged.) Could it be that a Christian, without philosophical training will simply continue to persevere in the faith because of the work of the Spirit. I know that sounds fundy. But I thought the point of Van Til was that arguments were not sufficient to convince people of Christianity’s truth.”

    https://oldlife.org/2009/08/14/neutrality-schnootrality/#comments

    LikeLike

86. Jeff, here’s what one of the sharpest and most respected metaphysicians today says:

    “Standard views of quantum physics hold that the behavior of elementary particles involves chance and is undetermined. But these standard views have been challenged; and there exist alternative interpretations of quantum theory that are deterministic. These alternative interpretations are the minority view among physicists at present, and they are controversial” (Robert Kane, A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will, Oxford, 2005, emphasis mine).

    Look at Hart’s worldview committing him to take sides in scientific debates and hold theories that are in the minority and are controversial. I guess Hart has a “Christian view” of the quantum physics. LOL. Christian plumbing indeed!

    LikeLike

87. Paul: but I would be willing to bet that the majority of physicists are not confusing “not knowing the cause of an event” with “the even not having a cause.”

    There are three options rather than two.

    * Not knowing the cause of an event
    * The event not having a cause
    * The event not having a cause that is observable, even in principle.

    The standard form of QI is the third.

    LikeLike

88. Jeff, the bill/tipping analogy was just that, an analogy. Rule number one about analogies is not too push them too far. But if someone is saying that stealing is justified then he is simply wrong. Why is that so hard? Why the need to scramble back to the drawing board and strain at gnats about sufficiency? Speaking of which, I don’t know what you mean that “sufficient” means “specifies every detail,” so I am not sure how or where I stipulated it. All I take sufficient to mean is that it’s enough. Sufficiency doesn’t erase problems, even great ones. But I still see absolutely no reason whatsoever to observe mistakes in applying what is universally known and conclude that universal knowledge doesn’t really exist or is insufficent. In point of fact, it seems to me that the presupposition here is that unless we get exact and perfect application then this whole idea of universal knowledge (read: the sufficiency of general revelation) is fubar. But I don’t presume notions of exact justice, I presume notions of proximate justice. The latter takes into account, seriously, the doctrine of sin, the former seems less serious.

    Paul, re the anti-intellectual slurring you choose to continue to traffic in, it’s interesting: one of the things that frustrated me to no end about the broad evangelicalism I exchanged for Reformation lo those many years ago was the ubiquitous fear and loathing of the mind. But it seems to me that the error of anti-intellectualism isn’t well corrected by the error of intellectualism. You have to try and understand that the confessionalist isn’t a logician. This doesn’t make the former anti-intellectual, it just means he wants to retain the dignity of the mind but also lower the stakes of what it can actually yield. The logician, if you’re any measure, wants every nook and cranny accounted for. The confessionalist simply isn’t THAT interested in sucking the mystery out of things.

    But one thing: you keep accusing the paleo critique of neo worldviewism with this: “Worldviewism teaches regeneration raises intelligence quotients.” That is more or less of of the implications of neo worldviewism, not the explicit teaching. The devil doesn’t come in pitchfork and hooves but in goodness and light (that’s a figure of speech, btw, before anyone flexes his logic muscle and says I’m implying something weirdly demonic). Simply stated, the implication of neo worldviewism is that believers, by virtue of faith, have a “leg up on” unbelievers in creational tasks. The only way I can be better than the unbeliever at math is to have the spatial portion of my brain enhanced by the Holy Spirit. Unless I have quenched the Spirit somewhere along the line, it has yet to happen. But saving faith is only good for eternal life, not temporal. And that really is the error of neo worldviewism, the unseemly obsession with the temporal versus the biblical accent on the eternal. The temporal world is indeed very good, but it’s also passing because of its being plunged into sin–more paradox, very good, yet totally depraved. This is the part where someone accuses of latent Dispensationalism and Anabaptism.

    LikeLike

89. Paul,

    No doubt, I would end up leaving the tip. I lived amongst the Dutch Calvinists for many years in Grand Rapids. Although I am not sure of Zrim’s ancestral past but he must be infected with the 0 to 5% tip range of the Dutch by now.

    LikeLike

90. Paul,

    I am not a philosopher; I am a lawyer. (By the way, no aspect of my posts here constitute legal advice or should be construed as such.) I’m sure that I do not know the nuances of divine command ethics to the extent that you do, but that doesn’t prevent me from recognizing its shortcomings. Nick Wolterstorff’s critique suits me fine (to the extent that my small mind was able to grasp it).

    As an lawyer, I am constantly faced with the task of telling my clients’ stories in a manner that makes sense to people at a gut-check level. If an attorney’s best argument for her client amounts to no more than “because the law says so” or “because my worldview tells me so,” then I dare say that she will lose a lot of cases. Factfinders expect the law to make reasonable sense out of the facts of the case in front of them and to achieve a result that seems right or just at a gut level. So, if you want to win in court, you have to be willing to spend a lot of time making sense of the nitty-gritty facts of your case. Amazingly, though, good lawyers generally succeed at finding a story from the facts that will resonate with the jury at a certain level. Is this because the lawyer shared the jurors’ worldview? Hardly. It’s because we are all human and react to life situations in surprisingly similar ways (notwithstanding any worldview commitments), and good lawyers are skilled at such natural-law kinds of reasoning.

    In my experience, popular proponents of worldviewism (and divine commend theory) shy away from such fact-based reasoning because it forces them to deal with facts that they’d rather ignore–facts that would cause them to temper their assertions of “truth” with various qualifications and nuances. By permitting them to gloss over inconvenient facts, worldviewism affords them a “clarity of voice” that would be otherwise unavailable. Such “clarity” is needed to stir up the resentments of their populist donor base, even though it may leave them with an advocacy that has no hope of swaying the opinions of the culture at large. I see this kind of worldviewism as harmful to our social fabric. It causes evangelicals to separate themselves from the culture and to fall victim to the notion that they can’t (or shouldn’t) engage the culture because the culture doesn’t hold to a “Christian worldview”. Moreover, it leads them to believe that their unsophisticated assertions are beyond critique because, as Christians, they inherently have a leg up on Constitutional law, for example, in comparison to the trained legal scholar.

    You have suggested that your “worldviewism” doesn’t suffer from these kinds of poisonous cultural features–features that plague Breakpoint, World Magazine, and Coral Ridge Ministries. OK, then how? How would you instruct Chuck Colson, Marvin Olasky, and Joel Belz, so that they could share with you in your “sophisticated” worldviewism? What aspect of “sophisticated” worldviewism are they missing that you possess? In other words, how would you train your fellow worldviewism proponents so that they are not such easy targets for dimwitted Appalachian folks like me?

    By the way, I’ve been to Grand Rapids, which one of my former colleagues referred to as “West Virginia by the lake”). I assure you that I will gladly take my corner of Appalachia (western NC) over Grand Rapids any day of the week, even at the risk that it may make me an object of ridicule of the “sophisticated” cultural trendsetters of western Michigan.

    LikeLike

91. Bob,

    Are you the White Sox fan Bob or was that someone else on this web site named Bob?

    LikeLike

92. Zrim,

    1. Rule number one about analogies is that they need to be analagous.

    2. If you have another name for the evidence I cited than anti-intellectual, I’m all ears. I’ve pointed out to you I don’t know how many times that I have defended and argued for mystery and paradox. I’m on public record. So the slur is actually your paitning me with the brush that you do. Moreover, it’s NOT a mystery when you are given a valid argument with premises you accept and you still deny the conclusion. That’s not a mystery, Zrim.

    3. Now, I no you may again to refuse to do this and hide behind “everything that I can’t prove is a mystery”, but if you want to be taken seriously then do this for me:

    You said Darryl’s claim that worldviewism says regeneration raises the IQ is an *implication* of worldviewism. Okay, well here you are throwing around a logical term like “implication.” Okay, then derive this conclusion:

    [R] Regeneration raises the IQ of the regenerate

    from some premises.

    And, what is this business about “neo worldviewism?” So there isn’t really a problem with my form of worldviewism, just some form you’ve dubed “neo worldviewism.”

    Lastly, worldviewism doesn’t claim that “saving faith” is good for the temporal (whatever that means, and I can see how it could be obviously false on some interpretations). It claims that some propositions of the Bible commit you to holding certain other propositions in all manner of life. So, for example, about science, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, etc. That’s worldviewism.

    LikeLike

93. Jeff,

    No, I don’t think so. I cited sources to the contrary. Furthermore, “observable” is one of the slipperiest words in science. It is the second proposition of yours that most physicists accept.

    LikeLike

94. Bob,

    Speaking for myself, I’m not a divine command theorist. But if you’re referring to his book Justice: Rights and Wrongs, I think his critique, for all the good in it, failed in its analogy it attempted to draw between human comands and divine commands. But since I don’t hold to DCT, I don’t see a reason to go into this; unless, of course, you want to.

    “As an lawyer, I am constantly faced with the task of telling my clients’ stories in a manner that makes sense to people at a gut-check level. If an attorney’s best argument for her client amounts to no more than “because the law says so” or “because my worldview tells me so,” then I dare say that she will lose a lot of cases.”

    Right, so when I linked to Dr. James Anderson’s post on biblical epistemology, Dr. Hart’s response that “I’m not persuaded,” wasn’t good. Speaking for myself, you’ll never see that from me — unless I’m *explaining* a proposition or implication of my worldview.

    “Hardly. It’s because we are all human and react to life situations in surprisingly similar ways (notwithstanding any worldview commitments), and good lawyers are skilled at such natural-law kinds of reasoning.”

    I agree with that. Of course, God made all of us in his image, there are proper function specifications for cognitive proper function, and similar specifications for ethical or moral proper function, which obtain because of how we’ve been designed.

    I also have a problem with those austere and naive beliefs about what worldviews say keeping them from engaging with culture, or thinking they have a “leg up” on Constitutional law without every studying Constitutional law scholars.

    But when you ask me how my approach to worldview doesn’t have these problems I’d need specifics. Here’s a starting point: I am generally following Van Til’s conception. Van Til himself told us that non-Christians know a heck of a lot more than Christians about all manner of issue. If you want specifics, though, ask me some specific questions.

    It would take a book to instruct Colson et al, did you want me to write that here and now. For starters, I like Alister McGrath’s chapter in his latest book The Passionate Intellect. There he mixes Luther’s theology of the cross with C.S. Lewis’ claim that he “believes in Christianity like [he] believes in the sun. Not because he sees it, but because by it he can see everything else.” I’d tell Colson et al that there are a lot more mountains in the world, these mountains not only block the sun but also imply dark valleys. The entire world is not lit up by the sun. There’s mysteries, paradoxes, and cognitive limitations. There’s propositions, many of them, that are underdetermined by the Bible, and so there’s not a lot of warrant for making some of the “thus sayeth” claims about politics etc., that they do. Moreover, where the Bible does imply something, there’s often of wide diversity of positions that could fill the gap (for example: let’s agree that the Bible and the Confession teach that man has an immaterial soul, so there’s a dualism (i.e., man has a body and a soul and they are not numerically identical to each other), there are numerous positions consistent with this, e.g., Cartesian Dualism, Thomistic Dualism, Emergent Dualism, etc). Since many positions could fit the bill, that should temper the way in which the particular positions are held, i.e., not as austerely.

    That’s a hint and a tatse of some of what I’d say.

    LikeLike

95. Bob,

    By the way, I’ve been to Grand Rapids, which one of my former colleagues referred to as “West Virginia by the lake”). I assure you that I will gladly take my corner of Appalachia (western NC) over Grand Rapids any day of the week, even at the risk that it may make me an object of ridicule of the “sophisticated” cultural trendsetters of western Michigan.

    I loathe Grand Rapids. I moved here two years ago from Escondido, California.

    BTW, I called Colson et al. Appalachian Mountaineers, not you.

    LikeLike

96. Zrim: Speaking of which, I don’t know what you mean that “sufficient” means “specifies every detail,” so I am not sure how or where I stipulated it.

    It’s back there; I was quoting you.

    But if in fact you want to let “sufficient” mean something weaker, I’m OK with that. I would just ask that you hold the sentence

    “Scripture is sufficient”

    to the same standard you are holding

    “General revelation is sufficient”

    to. If you do, then you won’t be asking those of us who hold that “Scripture is sufficient” to specify every detail. That’s not what sufficiency means in this context.

    Anyways, back to lurking for me.

    JRC

    LikeLike

97. Dr. Hart:

    “Carl Trueman’s comments on Dinesh D’Souza appointment as president of King’s College have prompted further discussion. In a post that responds to the charge that Trueman was guilty of applying seminary standards to a liberal arts college, the Lord Protector of WTS explains that the real confusion is on the other side — namely, promoting a comprehensive world and life view that is supposedly free from doctrinal considerations of the kind that divide Protestants and Roman Catholics. Trueman writes:

    ‘ For myself, I am very comfortable with the view of the world expressed in the Westminster Standards. The theology therein profoundly expresses my view of life, the universe and all that. Does that mean I deny the name Christian to someone who is, say, an Arminian or a Lutheran or an Anabaptist or a Catholic? ‘ ”

    Excuse me for joining the conversation so late in the game; but I have not heretofore followed your Blog at all. Were it not for a friend’s posting of a related item, I would not have seen the above.

    I’ve read your article and all the attached comments and I have to say that they leave me with a great deal of confusion. A lot of that confusion no doubt springs from my own inadequacies. Philosophy and the study of philosophy have never been my forte’.

    First, let me question a part of what Dr. Trueman says: “Does that mean I deny the name Christian to someone who is, say, an Arminian or a Lutheran or an Anabaptist or a Catholic?” While Trueman’s spectrum is quite limited, isn’t that exactly what we must do at some points of that spectrum? Surely, he does not intend that an extension of the spectrum to left and right means that all resultant religious viewpoints must be considered Christian? It was be absurd, I suppose, to suggest that the Oriental mystical religions such as Hinduism on one hand or Dialectical Communism on the other hand were just additional options in the same spectrum. So the question really isn’t whether were deny the name of Christian to some perspectives. The question is where the denial is applied? Dr. Trueman’s list does not seem to have a single basis of division. But, if the Remonstrant position is just a sanitized form of Pelagianism, can we call Arminianism Christian? Or if the Roman view of justification is heretically flawed, may it still be called Christian?

    I am currently reading your biography of John Williamson Nevin, for a second time. You refer to the Oxford Movement and the fact that many Anglicans became Roman Catholic. I am bemused by the ease at which these men abandoned Protestantism for Romanism. And now, at King’s College, has the modern Roman view of justification become so “protestantized” that it is acceptable to an evangelical institution?

    Then, forgive me, for jumping to another question. Why does it seem that some of your responders think that worldviewism and confessionalism are antagonistic or contrary to each other? Can one not hold to a world-view and to a confessional standard at the same time? Do these not arise in all men because of the creation mandate to Adam to subdue or cultivate the earth? That man is fallen does not eradicate the creational offices with which he was endowed. Do I have a conflict with such a suggestion because I am Postmillennial? Or, is it because I am a graduate of Bob Jones University where a world and life view was clearly taught but the verbage was not used and may not have been realized? One of the Senior Dr. Bob’s Chapel Sayings was: “Life is not divided between the secular and the sacred. For the Christian all ground is holy ground, every bush is a burning bush, and every building a temple of the living God.” By the way, I went to BJU a Calvinistic Baptist and came out a Reformed Presbyterian.

    LikeLike

98. I cannot get this worldview thinking vrs. confessional doctrinal thinking out of my consciousness now (or, if there should be a conflict at all) I am motivated to try to bring more clarity to my own mind with the help of those who might have more insight regarding this here. Although it seems that all who have posted are not clear on the matter either or we wouldn’t still be posting about it. Some are probably closer to clarity then others (or, at least think they are)

    Could it possibly be that all branches of philosophy and apologetics are best used in the creational realms we function in (this would also include political theory, economic theory, mathematical theory, scientific theory, etc). We could then use our understanding of these fields when we interact and dialog with others (regenerate and unregenerate alike) in the public square or in our vocational callings. We have common ground with all those made in the image of God in that we can use our minds and thinking skills to try to bring resolution to problems we find in our encounters in this realm. We use the mental and physical gifts we have and try to develop them as best we can so they can be of benefit to those God calls us serve. Even those who suppress the knowledge of God (the unregenerate) can use their gifts and talents to Providentially benefit their fellow human beings even though they do this with differing and varying motives. We all (regenerate and unregenerate alike) still have the sin problem that always tries to raise its ugly head. The sin problem can be diminished in the creational realm by appealing to the moral law and logic “implanted” in all human beings. This is where world view thinking is helpful in that the suppressed knowledge of God can be brought more to the surface through reflection and skill development. That paper on mathematics and theism that Paul posted is a good example of bringing the suppressed knowledge of God to the surface in people’s consciousness. This is the function of institutions outside the Church (families, schools, governments, etc). This is where we develop and debate varying and conflicting views of reality. It is here where worldview thinking best thrives and is most useful.

    Confessional doctrinal thinking is then preserved and passed on in the institutional Churches of the varying denominations where the redemptive realm resides.

    The problem is is that there is going to be crossover in the creation realms and the redemptive realms. It seems that when one studies Church history and historical theology that problems arise when philosophical thinking and theological thinking try to integrate. Examples of this are Aquinas with Aristotle, Calvin and Augustine with Plato, Luther with the Nominalists and Edwards with the Empiricists. This then caused great divisions within the Church and influenced a lot of the sacramental and experiential thinking in theology. That is about how far I can go for right now- I am getting tired and it is getting late. Hopefully, someone will respond to this.

    LikeLike

99. Paul,

    So your position is that I have a worldview even if I deny I have one? Or is it that if I don’t have a worldview I am not biblical? Why are you so obsessed (and looking at the number of comments in my inbox from you, I’d say that your obsessed) with worldview?

    Here’s what bothers me about Anderson:

    “to whether there is a “biblical epistemology” depends on what precisely we mean by that. If we mean that there is one particular theory of knowledge taught in the Bible, in contradistinction to all alternative theories, the answer is obviously no. But if we mean that the Bible has significant things to say about human knowledge, that it places certain parameters on our theorizing about matters epistemological, and that it can fruitfully direct such theorizing, then the answer is surely yes. There is such thing as a “biblical epistemology”, just as there can be a “biblical metaphysics”, a “biblical ethics”, and a “biblical politics”. Likewise, there is such thing as an “unbiblical epistemology”, just as there can be an “unbiblical metaphysics”, an “unbiblical ethics”, and an “unbiblical politics”.”

    I don’t see what is all that important about such a conclusion, other than a philosopher who wants a biblical justification for what he does. And when someone talks about biblical politics, I reach for my sword (of the Lord).

    LikeLike

100. Bob, this is a very good point about attention to the particulars that all humans need to engage as opposed to the penchant for theory that afflicts some intellectuals. Mind you, I find the theories of several political philosophers pretty impressive. But as a historian I lean toward Aristotle over Plato.

     Either way, I think the facts have as much claim upon a Christian’s knowledge as theories of knowing, even more. Since the particulars are part of God’s creation, it sure seems we need knowledge that acknowledges what God has done.

     LikeLike

101. Vaughn, on Trueman’s understanding of a Christian worldview, you’ll have to ask him. Unfortunately, Ref21 doesn’t take comments. I guess it’s beneath them.

     The antagonism between confessionalism and worldviewism here seems to be one of emphasis — whether a worldview is as important or even more important that the creed. Since BJU teaches worldview and not the Confession, you might have some evidence that worldviewism is independent from confessionalism.

     I’m the son of a BJU grad and unfortunately, I have to disagree with Dr. Bob. I also think the confession does when he says that there is no separation between the sacred and the secular. The Standards clearly teach — on the Sabbath — that such a distinction exists and is essential to Reformed piety. And not to be too demeaning, but I wonder how sublime a worldivew is if it includes Kuyper, Colson, and Jones. (I hope Paul is reading.)

     LikeLike

102. Jeff C.

     Thanks for sticking up for your old 2k pals, Zrim and DGH. You clearly fell some distance from the Frame tree.

     LikeLike

103. But if in fact you want to let “sufficient” mean something weaker, I’m OK with that. I would just ask that you hold the sentence “Scripture is sufficient” to the same standard you are holding “General revelation is sufficient” to. If you do, then you won’t be asking those of us who hold that “Scripture is sufficient” to specify every detail. That’s not what sufficiency means in this context.

     Jeff, fair enough. But the problem, as I see it, is that when you deny that general revelation is sufficient for general tasks it seems to me that there can be no other implication than to say that special revelation must rescue general revelation from its alleged insufficiency; and, contrariwise, I don’t see what then prevents you from saying that when special revelation seems to not settle ecclesiastical matters sufficiently enough perhaps we ought to consult general revelation. How does that harmonize with sola scriptura? But to my mind this is no different than saying, “Huh, well, the rulebook for tennis doesn’t seem to cover what just happened on the court. Let’s consult the cricket rulebook. After all, the games look a lot alike.” Eh, how about taking what we already know about tennis to address what has confused us about what just happened on the court? Because, tennis isn’t cricket (and the world isn’t the church).

     So, I can understand you wanting sufficiency to not mean “specifies every detail,” and obviously I agree. But when you want to switch the rulebooks—which is to say, apply special revelation to civil tasks or general revelation to ecclesiastical tasks—you’re still not out of the woods. Switching rulebooks due to perceived insufficiencies is how we get all manner of errors, heresies and idolatries.

     Also, toss my belated kudos in for sticking up for us small minded and unsophisticated 2kers.

     LikeLike

104. The sin problem can be diminished in the creational realm by appealing to the moral law and logic “implanted” in all human beings. This is where world view thinking is helpful in that the suppressed knowledge of God can be brought more to the surface through reflection and skill development.

     John, this is the sort of thing that worries me, when there is talk of “diminishing the sin problem.” I think you’re right, that it abides worldviewism, but I don’t know how Augustinian-Calvinists can abide any notion that sin can be diminished by appealing to implicit morality or logic. That’s an example, I think, of how very good tools get over-realized to do more than for which they were ordained. It also sounds a lot like saying sin is a sickness that can be successfully managed instead of a nature that must be reconciled and painstakingly mortified. Those are two very different views of sin, and it seems to me what helps distinguish neo worldviewism from paleo confessionalism, and is how the latter understand the former to be the leading edge of liberalism.

     LikeLike

105. Zrim,

     Perhaps a better way to put it is that anarchy can be deterred by appealing to moral law and logic (or how about sin can be deterred rather than diminished; I was using diminished as the opposite of augmented; not in the sense of being partially eradicated). Kind of like how stop lights make the flow of traffic through an intersection less chaotic. Appealing to moral law and logic is a deterrent for people to not act out on their sin impulses whenever they want to. If they continue to “act out” you give them a ticket or put them in jail. You do have to try to “manage sin” outside the Church. You can seek to “painstakingly mortify” it through the work of Christ and His means of grace in the Church.

     LikeLike

106. We can also show mercy towards those who agree to work on their sin problem by a continual and faithful attendance at Sunday Worship each week. Isn’t that how we deal with everyone in the Churches we attend? If what I have stated is liberalism than I guess I am guilty.

     LikeLike

107. John, I don’t think we need neo worldviewism to make the world more or less work the way it is supposed to. If stop lights are the analogy, perfect pagans can figure out how to make traffic flow in a relatively orderly manner. Neo worldviewism seems to want to go beyond handing out tickets to lawbreakers, it wants to design city planning in such a way that fender-benders never happen (so to speak). Again, the difference between ordinary and extraordinary. So, worldviewism isn’t helpful, it’s religious fantasizing serving only as a distraction from getting things done. Maybe that’s why summertime on the roads in Little Geneva is so frustrating, all these transformationalist city planners trying to bring their faith to bear on the blessed pavement?

     LikeLike

108. Darryl,

     Yes, you have a worldview even if you deny having one. Other than that, perhaps you could enlighten us all as to how you derived the conclusion: “you are obsessed with worldvew” from this premise, “you have made a large ( vague?) number of comments in this thread”.

     Then, I got all excited. I thought I was going to read some substantive comments on Anderson’s post. I read it, and you simply *repeated* that you don’t like it. Moreover, perhaps you can enlighten us as to what rational persuasive power this is supposed to have: “I don’t see what’s important about it, [snip rude, arrogant, uninformed, and sniveling comment here].”

     Anyway, check it out: there is an apple on my table. Is that “important?” Not really. But it is true, and as such you should believe it. So, let’s assume you don’t find Anderson’ paper important (and should I add that you don’t because apologetics and philosophy have been at the center of Reformed conferences and book sales and you’re engaged in a power play with other historical theologians to take center stage?). Though what we find “important” is, apart from how vague it is, often a function of our presuppositions, let’s assume that it isn’t “important.” Here’s the question: is he right or wrong? Given this situation we can bring out at least one important things. Seems to me that believing truth and avoiding falsehood is pretty important. Not spouting off falsehoods in public is pretty important too. So, if Anderson is right, then, not only do you have an obligation to have a positive cognitive attitude toward that proposition, but you have made a publicly false statement. So, the real question isn’t whether Darryl Hart is interested in the subject, or what he subjectively thinks about it, the real question is whether Anderson is right or wrong. If he is wrong, that matters. If he is right, that matters. If he is right, you are wrong, and you should cease making a public fool of yourself and love truth over lies. So, here’s something I hope you’ll find helpful: The truth value of a proposition, p, isn’t affected just because you don’t like p.

     But, maybe I should take Jeff’s advice. You know, the guy who “stuck up” for you and Zrim. He said you guys are just jokers in the blogosphere and don’t attempt to make any serious comments. The only place you make serious comments and think and write carefully and cogently is in your books. And since this isn’t your book, therefore you don’t make serious comments and think and write carefully and cogently. So perhaps, per Jeff’s defense of you, I shouldn’t expect any serious interaction with what I’ve said.

     LikeLike

109. Zrim,

     I never said that pagans could not figure out how to make traffic flow in a relatively orderly manner. In fact, I was saying the opposite. They are perfectly capable of figuring that out along with running governments and all institutions outside the Church. In fact, they are much more motivated to do this because they think this life is all there is. But, as Van Til stated, and what DVD clearly expounded upon in his NL and 2K book is that they are robbing from God and suppressing his truth at all times when pursuing their vocational activities. They refuse to see and admit that it is God who is holding the universe together and that He is the one who gives them the capability to pursue their ends.

     LikeLike

110. Zrim said,

     “Maybe that’s why summertime on the roads in Little Geneva is so frustrating, all these transformationalist city planners trying to bring their faith to bear on the blessed pavement?

     Been to New York lately? How about L.A.? How about Chicago? Not many “transformationalist city planners” there.

     Anyway, here’s what I’m trying to get my head around: you put on the hat of moral police and act like a Puritanical moralist every time I call you a radical (which many of DVD’s students call you) and an anti-intellectual. You complain about “slurring” and “being mean.” But when I read you, you are always lying and misrepresenting and slurring and mocking and laughing at worldviewers and eeeeevangelicals? My sinful nature wants to know this: do I get a hypocrisy pass if I become 2K?

     LikeLike

111. I found a Calvin reference to Zrim and Dr. Hart (yes, yes, I’m a bit of a historical theologian myself):

     “Zrim and Dr. Hart have what they are seeking, or rather what they were not seeking. For a concern for seeking the truth does not control someone who is so unable to be satisfied with such a clear and simple answer that, having heard it, they pretend that no reply has been given them, and continues to jeer as if they hace heard nothing.”

     John Calvin, The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: A Defence of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Zrim and Dr. Hart (pg. 37)

     🙂

     LikeLike

112. Zrim,

     It seems to me that Apologetics and Philosophy from a theistic point of view can be of help in bringing to the surface of people’s consciousness the necessity of a God who makes rationality and science possible. This will not regenerate them but it can bring the beginning leanings toward a change of mind. Only the Holy Spirit can bring conviction and regeneration. I am pretty sure this was Warfield’s belief too.

     LikeLike

113. Paul: But, maybe I should take Jeff’s advice. You know, the guy who “stuck up” for you and Zrim. He said you guys are just jokers in the blogosphere and don’t attempt to make any serious comments.

     Perhaps I should have been more clear.

     (1) I was oblique because I didn’t want to be rude, and because I stand condemned by my own advice.

     Here it is directly:

     A Christian worldview must inform our use of the keyboard. Heaping contempt upon Zrim and Dr. Hart, regardless of whether they deserve it or not, is contrary to Scripture (citations abound, but Prov. 17.7 is good). There is almost no point that can be made with contempt, that cannot be made just as or more effectively without contempt.

     If you like, I can direct you to instances when I failed to follow my own advice, and you can see how well that worked out.

     (2) I share your frustration at times in that I sometimes feel … searching for a word here … underesteemed. Not fully listened to. Dismissed. (Sorry Darryl and Steve, I think we can all acknowledge that our conversation is not free, easy, and natural, right? Valuable but hard work.).

     I still see value in it, especially when common ground can be found. It was a delight to see DGH post the piece by Fesko on union.

     (3) Even amidst my frustration, I can appreciate that maintaining the integrity of the jurisdictions of church and magistrate is a *real* problem, and DGH is acting as a provocative voice to needle the Presbyterian church into addressing that problem. That’s not at all the same as being a joker, unless we’re thinking of court jesters in the style of Wamba the Witless.

     And there *is* a real problem. When hundreds of thousands of evangelicals show up for a “non-political religious event” that is the Glenn Beck rally, and accept the advice of a creed-denying Mormon that America should return to God, there is a real problem.

     So there’s frustration (at times) and overall respect for the goal.

     (4) So what next? If there is to be a conversation instead of a shouting match, what’s your next move? The current trajectory will not end well. But I think you are wise enough to see what I mean and change course.

     Grace and peace,
     Jeff

     LikeLike

114. It is odd that the “Confessionalists” here do not stand in the Reformed tradition’s view on the propriety of natural arguments for God as well as the merit and usefulness of philosophical arguments. For a useful corrective to this neo-Calvinist assessment of things, see Michael Sudduth, The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology (Ashgate 2009).

     LikeLike

115. I have not been honed in on and admonished and exhorted (I think the worst I have been called is a liberal here) but you do get the sense that you are being ignored and your presence not acknowledged if your comments are not up to snuff with a certain standard. I take that with a grain of salt though and try not to take it personally. As Jeff stated there is a lot to be gained by checking in here and Darryl Hart is certainly bringing issues to the forefront that have needed to be said to the American Church at large.

     LikeLike

116. Paul, if there is an apple on your table, I suggest you eat it. It might help you adjust to the relative import of apologetics and philosophy, for when you say that I am part of a power play you are engage either in insinuation or more conspiratorial thinking.

     And all that you say about my not liking X doesn’t prove that X is not true, is correct, of course. But the same applies to you. You don’t like what I write about worldview. That doesn’t make what I wrote wrong. Nor does a link to another blog (are you kidding? Is this the best your philosophy can do to point to a 500 word blog post?).

     I also asked you if you adjusted your worldview of worldview after reading DVD on Dooyeweerd and Van Til. You never answered. That means I at least revealed my preferences. You’re left pining for the Free University.

     As for Jeff’s point about needling, my point is that sometimes the Reformed world becomes so inbred that it doesn’t realize how blinkered it sounds to those who don’t share the same loyalties and pieties. I also think that so much of neo-Calvinism is long on inspiration but thin on analysis. I know that comes as a shock to people who think of themselves as the smartest guys in worship. But the neo-Cal’s haven’t proved their points. And what DVD shows is that neo-Cal’s don’t know the Reformed tradition on points that make transformationalism and worldviewism a problem even for Reformed believers.

     That’s not a power play by historians. It is a historical reality that the theories of neo-Cal’s never seem to consider, I guess, because they transcend the realities of this world and its development.

     LikeLike

117. Paul, cute use of my Calvin quote. Funny how I had you in mind when I provided it at my House.

     But I think the key to your antagonism is your love affair with sophistication: Worldviewism is bad when it’s the crass and uncouth prosperity gospelers, but it’s dazzling when it’s the sophisticates. But confusing creation and redemption is confusing creation with redemption, and forcing the Bible to be a handbook for temporal life (trivial or enduring) is still forcing the Bible to be a handbook for life no matter who is doing it or for what end. Your blindspot is actually something that seems to afflict a lot of Reformedville which prizes and esteems sophistication. In the worship wars, it’s what causes raised-pinky CRCers employing the Willow Creek model to capture those who like a lot of wood, icons and processionals in their religion to look down their noses at the evangies who use the same model to capture pop culturalists who like electric geetars and drums in theirs. But sophistication doen’t make will-worship go away, and it doesn’t cover the multitude of sins in worldviewism. The key to prosperity gospel isn’t who has the cheesy combover and bling, it’s thinking that the gospel has a direct implication for or obvious bearing on the cares of this world.

     I guess it’s true what they say, romantic love makes men blind.

     LikeLike

118. Dr. Hart,

     When I said you were engaged in a power play I was arguing like a D.G.H. You know, like the psychoanalyzing you did for why James Anderson wrote his post on a “biblical epistemology.” Remember, you said he did it to justify his chosen profession. I turn around and apply the same kind of claim to you and you moan and complain. Thus, that should slap you in the forehead as to how your commet about James was.

     I know that my not liking what you wrote doesn’t mean that it is wrong. Here’s what you’re not getting: I keep offering arguments for what I don’t like. You, on the other hand, are simply content with announcing that you don’t like it.

     Lastly, I didn answer your question about adjusting my worldview. Go back and read it. In fact, I responded in a way that placed a question on you, that you didn’t answer.

     Your latest response to me was a giant exercise in self-excepting fallacies.

     LikeLike

119. Zrim,

     Speaking about your house, I’m over there now defending your post while all you can do is wave your hands and say it’s not a problem and that there’s nothing to reconcile. You engage in Wizard of Oz arguments, “nothing to see here,” while hiding behind a curtain. You pretend that if Steve Zrimec doesn’t “get something” then it must be a mystery or a paradox. How’s that for arrogance. Indeed, you don’t even bother to read up on the subject and still proclaim that it’s a “mystery.” You don’t seem to get that you’re claim to being “ordinary” is just an excuse to be lazy and make irresponsible claims. If you make a false claim, oh well, you’re just an ordinary guy, and why should we expect you to read and study on those issues which you pontinficate about? How dare we!

     Of course, I am as sophisticated as the conversation calls for. Plenty of times I will talk about a subject in common and unsophisticated terms. But at times the discussion calls for some sophistication of rigor. Every scholar knows this, Zrim. You won’t catch Hart, Horton, or Clark not caring about being sophisticated, rigorous, or making necessary subtle distinctions when they need to be drawn.

     Look, all you can do is to poison the well (a fallacy) by constantly associating me with groups like Willow Creek, Charles Colson, the prosperity gospel, theology of glory, or eeeevangelicals. You’re lazy in dialogue and you simply take the easy way out by poisoning the well and mocking or making fun of your interlocutor. You never take the time and care needed to actually prove your assertions. You simply announce your dislike or dissaproval of something I have said. You write to your audience, you just want approval from those whose praise you seek. You never quote me, carefully interact with me, analyze my statements, give possible readings and address those, and attack and address the most charitable reading of your opponent.

     This is probably why I got an email the other day from one of your fellow confessional-minded friends who thanked me for helping him or her see the light, and this is the sophistry that you and Dr. Hart engage in on the blogopshere on a regular and consistent basis.

     LikeLike

120. Jeff,

     “And there *is* a real problem. When hundreds of thousands of evangelicals show up for a “non-political religious event” that is the Glenn Beck rally, and accept the advice of a creed-denying Mormon that America should return to God, there is a real problem.”

     I certainly agree with that. And bringing this up and out is one of the things I am most thankful for what Hart &c are doing.

     I agree with them on many of their points. They, not so much. They are all or nothing. No comromise. No admission of error. Their way or the highway. They are never wrong. And they are so sure they’re right on whatever it is they bloviate about that they don’t even feel the need to argue for it, they just announce it and dismiss the other side.

     And, sometimes there is a place for hard language.

     LikeLike

121. Calvinists and Lutherans have a hard time admitting error- it is what has kept them apart for so many years. It will never happen on a public site that is for sure. I am not sure whether the issue we have been arguing about is one that can be classified as critical though. The one that is being argued about at the Outhouse now is critical. And one that I have not done near enough thinking on.

     LikeLike

122. Paul,

     1) Worldviewism originated with Hegel.

     2) The Bible doesn’t speak of philosophy or worldview.

     3) Our confessions don’t mention it.

     4) Worldview is used to do some foolish analysis of the world.

     5) Philosophy is not the queen of the sciences.

     6) Understanding how we know is not required to be a Christian, or a good Christian.

     Those are reasons that are not preferences. But like a good worldviewer, if someone doesn’t agree with you it becomes their personal problem, not a matter of intellectual disagreement.

     As for Anderson, I did say he was trying to justify his profession. As I understand it, philosophy is that field. Now unless we are in Plato’s republic, philosophers don’t have much power. So for you to turn around my comment about Anderson as my own for of a power play, I think again that worldviewism has addled your brain. Historians don’t have power either. (and I don’t appeal to the Bible to justify what I do as a historian.)

     LikeLike

123. Paul,

     1) Addressed above. The *word* originated with Kant.

     2) So? It presents one.

     3) So? It presents elements of one.

     4) Like you do?

     5) So?

     6) So? And?

     Those are not *reasons* DGH, those are *statements*. And if you think those are reasons, they certainly aren’t very good ones. If you think they are, put forth a conclusion and let those function as reasons for accepting the conclusion.

     I am sure you intellectually disagree with me, but I want to see some substantive reasons why, not your mere assertions. So far neither I, nor any one else, has been treated to your reasons in support of your conclusion.

     Anderson gave reasons for his conclusion, and he cited Scripture too, and all you could do was say he was trying to find a biblical justification for his profession. It is obvious that Anderson was not “appealing to the Bible to justify his profession.” And even if he was, that wouldn’t mean anything, you’d actually have to give *reasons* for thinking he was wrong.

     So, try again.

     LikeLike

124. But, Paul, there you go again, demanding I engage you on your terms. And if I don’t behave like a logician, and instead engage you on my terms, then out come the slurs. Like I have said before, your tactics have an uncomfortable similarity with obnoxious unbelievers who demand believers prove to their ridiculous satisfaction for the hope that lies within, and when they don’t they are simply mocked. I shudder to think what sort of pastoral care that translates into when an ordinary believer experiences mockery or even persecution. Why do you continue to blame me for being something I am not? If my engagement isn’t good enough for you then perhaps the best course of action is to refrain instead of to continue to insult. Ever heard of shaking dust from your sandals?

     You also seem to over-realize the blog medium (think living room or bar instead of hall or courtroom), and it’s as if every single presupposition needs to be proven before anyone has a right to his conclusion. Your usual routine is to go through all your pristine logic and declare that you have just “demonstrated why so-and-so can’t possibly be right, so to disagree with me is either a case of supreme laze or old fashioned stupidity.” You must marvel that there are people in the world who can attend your hermetically sealed logic and still walk away not agreeing with you. Talk about the height of arrogance, even with all those p’s and q’s way up above you started out with.

     LikeLike

125. Zrim, if this is a bar why do you care about slurs? What bars do you hang at? The local ladies’ tea parlor?

     Like I said before, your tactics are like almost every cult I run into. Make a bunch of assertions about Golden Plates this, or Return of the Lord that, and then when the town’s Christian apologist comes up to defend the faith and his brow beaten brothers and sisters, calls your bluffs, you resort to “it’s a mystery” to every argument, and “you would see we’re right if you just prayed about it” to every critique of your view.

     Of course I’m in the trenches defending “ordinary” believers against the attacks of atheists and cultists and heretics. How’s your pastoral care when a believer is being assailed by doubts (as our confession says happens) and all you can offer him is, “Dude, don’t worry about their critique, they’re just using that Greek lawgik on you, and so you’re confusing law(gik) and gospel. It’s all a big mystery and a paradox. Just confess the Confession, and everything will work out in the end. God loves us humble believers who keep on believing with that holy and pious blind faith. Arguments are reasoning are from da debil, you know, old horny, old scratch. Here’s what you say to every question: “If I don’t get it, it’s a mystery. If I don’t understand it, no one can. If I can’t answer it, who cares, I’m just an ordinary Joe.”

     And, for the umpteenth time, I don’t blame you for being ordinary, I blame you for being intellectually lazy. If you’re going pop off on a topic, pontificating and putting on airs, and lob pseudo-critiques and challenges out at people, then be prepared for someone to call your bluff. Think of your bar room again. You and Darryl run into the bar after the local college football game. Talking smack, making noise and chest bumping all over the room. You guys intimidate a few people throughout the bar, win an arm wrestling match or two against a couple guys from the college’s chess club, and this boosts your testosterone levels. You then bump into a table of bikers. The booze is already to your head, and the girl cheerleaders behind you are rahing you on. One biker gets up and smashes both your heads together and tells you to bring it outside. Put up or shut up. You and your buddy hobble away, still talking smack, and sit the rest of the night at a table in the corner complaining that someone actually had the nerve to fight you and call your bluff, and so you just tell war stories to your adoring fans who think your bumps and bruises are marks of true bar brawlers.

     Now wasn’t this fun. The anti-rationalist “confessionalists” managed to drag yet another debate into meaningless unsubstantive babble. Here’s the MO: Dodge, ignore, giggle, poison the well, name call, make subtle in-crowd jokes, assert, dodge, ignore, feign ignorance, assert with arrogance, dodge, ignore, misdirect, redirect, dance, and otherwise write massive amounts of posts and comments without ever managing to take on one argument against your view or show how one answer to the multitude of time-buying questions you throw up wasn’t sufficient.

     Yeah, I’ll take you’re advice, peace out.

     LikeLike

126. And this is why some people read Old Life instead of Triablogue.

     LikeLike

127. And this is why some people read Triablogue instead of Old Life.

     LikeLike

128. Paul,

     It is obvious that you are championing at least some notion of Christian worldview here, I really have no interest in begrudging you this, as it seems to be at the heart of your intellectual interests. I don’t even doubt that delving into, developing, and specifying a Christian worldview of any stripe might not have some real value as you interact with those who are outside the faith. Maybe this has been a meaningful and useful pursuit for you as you seek to testify of the gospel to those who might need high-level philosophical argumentations for the plausibility of the Reformed faith.

     With that said, I have a few issues with some of your pointed insistence and critiques with what you deem as confessional anti-intellectualism. These statements simply don’t fly with simple folk who see no need to have a highly developed worldview. I see in the Confession (WCF especially) and the Catechisms a simple, succinct articulation of the doctrine and storyline of the Scripture. While there is room for disagreement and exceptions within broader Confessionalism, the strength of the confessions is the fact that these are distilled from the clear doctrines of scripture, they don’t stray too far into the various ideological issues of the day, because they deal with the timeless truths of the biblical faith. They are clear, and easily grasped to those who devote the time to interact with them.

     Speaking for myself personally, and I am sure I am not alone in this, the Confessional Reformed faith holds out to her adherents a broad and deep understanding of who God is, and what his purposes are in history. They provide a baseline for the church to effectively and faithfully minister to those of us who haven’t the time or intellectual capacity to interact with Kantianism, Hegelianism, or the implications of determinism/indeterminism of particle physics. The fact is that God feeds his people through the simple and seemingly foolish means of the Word preached and the sacraments faithfully administered. There are countless believers who have been crushed under the paradigm of “Christianity and…”. When the fact is we are part of an otherworldly calling, and for the time being we need to be nurtured on our homeward journey.

     The worldviewism that I have most often encountered is an accretion to the faith handed down. It diverts our attention from our heavenward call and bogs us down with the concerns of transforming and redeeming a passing world. During the course of our dual-citizenship we ought to be very concerned that our vocations are executed with all due skill and dilligence as unto the Lord, but that doesn’t mean we are engaged in Christian plumbing, rocket science, particle physics etc. We are to be faithful employers and employees who do our best to serve our vocations and our neighbors in a way that speaks to our heavenly citizenship. It matters little whether or not this is executed form a well-formed worldview, since that simply isn’t where most of us exist. Its a worthwhile discussion on these venues, and I would even say a worthwhile pursuit for those who are so inclined. But worldview simply isn’t as critical as some of its proponents would like to make it.

     Knowing God as he has revealed himself in his word is of much higher importance. The catechisms are so very helpful in this respect because they are a tool that enables a timely digestion of the teachings of Scripture. If worldview was so crucial to the life of the church, why did Paul declare that he refused to know anything among the Corinthians other than the crucified Christ, and he seemed to refuse to invest himself into the hollow philosophy of the day. We anti-intellectual confessionalists have simply opted for a simpler articulation of the faith, and we trust that as we live our lives before God and are faithful to attend to the ordinary means of grace, the power of the Holy Spirit is sufficient for us to connect the dots in our ordinary, and often very difficult journey home. He has managed through the millenia to use the weak to shame the strong, and the foolish to confound the wise.

     Frankly, as I have interacted with you, it is exceedingly difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, since it is your propensity to go straight for the jugular when anyone dares to question your intellectual chops. This is why I have such a deep respect for worldviewists like Jeff Cagle and those like him. They manage to balance heated debate with charity and respect that should characterize Christian brothers who find themselves in profound disagreement. Maybe if you would state your case in a fashion that doesn’t require full body armor and constant defensiveness, you might get a better hearing, and who knows, you may even make some persuasive points.

     I will now resume the duck-and-cover posture, and wait for the flying mortars.

     LikeLike

129. Jed,

     Where you waiting to post until I said I wouldn’t post anymore?

     1. Did I ever deny that I was arguing that Christians have worldviews and that Christianity has implications for several “ordinary” or ostensibly non-theological topics like metaphysics, science, history, etc.

     2. Of course, “worldviewism” whatever that is, no one has defined it, is *not* the heart of my “intellectual pursuits.” Would you being making a hasty generalization from my comments in this post?

     3. Since I engage real, dirty, ordinary folks far more than any confessionalist that I know, this is also the interest of them too. And, most average Reformed people have questions about how freedom and predestination work, how perseverance and the warning passages work. Havinf sat in on numerous church sunday schools, I know this is the case. Moreover, I know how to put matters in non-philosophical or technical terms.

     4. I gave my evidence for anti-intellectualism. And the disinterest for “book larnin” that most of these confessionalists like Zrim have, are far from what we saw in the Reformed. Moreover, the use of logic, philosophy, and natural theology was far more ubiquitous than they let on (see Sudduth’s The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology).

     Moreover, Darryl Hart’s ridiculous treatment of my sincere requests and arguments is inexcusable. I have plenty of PhD and guys going for PhDs and layman who emailed me and think Hart’s attitude and approach to these matters was ridiculous.

     And, yes, people DO stray into these issues. In fact, A LOT do. Maybe they don’t at churches where they are told to shut up and just accept it, but judging by book sales and my experience at more than one reformed church, two of them that housed more than one WTS seminary prof, your statements about the interest of the laymen is uninformed.

     5. Why haven’t hardly any “internet confessionalists” evidenced this “deep” understanding of who God is. At any sign that they might get a headache reading, they just declare the subject a mystery and call you a “logician” for studying the topic.

     6. Of course, my point in bringing up quantum physics and other matters was not to say that we all need to be experts on the matter, it was to REFUTE some of Hart’s claims. You’re not reading very critically.

     7. I know about your new shift to the Reformed faith. It seems guys like you and Zrim are most gung-ho about this radical and hard-core form of confessionalism. So there is no doubt psychological explanations for your emphasis.

     And again, I never made the issue of worldview critical or important. I simply refuted Hart’s claim that, for instance, there is no such thing as a biblical epistemology. I can’t figure out why you confessionalists cannot “get” this. There seems to be an inherent inability to properly respond and represent the opposing position. Why is that?

     8. So I deny your straw man and red herring at trying to make me out as someone who is saying that we know God primarily through philosophy or that the confessions are less important than what the Bible has to say about epistemology.

     9. Sorry about how you feel about me. Of course, much of my behavior was brought out by the attitude and responses I was getting from Hart and Zrim. But of course, you can’t see through the eyes of those on the other side.

     I note that you’re not offering any criticism of Zrim and Hart. You’re credibility in chastising me has went out the window.

     Notice for the first half dozen posts or so I stated my position as charitably and non-aggressively as I could.

     Of course, based on the number of people who email me and talk to me (some of them with big names, names that Hart &c would respect), I know about the persuasiveness of my points and the weakness of theirs.

     So, I bet those who you like love your defense of them. It didn’t even occur to you to think about things from the perspective of your enemy.

     LikeLike

130. “This is why I have such a deep respect for worldviewists like Jeff Cagle and those like him. They manage to balance heated debate with charity and respect that should characterize Christian brothers who find themselves in profound disagreement.”

     Only worldviewists must act like this. Hart and Zrim may act as uncharitable and disresepctful as they want without any moral berating from Jed Paschall.

     LikeLike

131. Jack, why are you reading Oldlife?

     Paul, you wrote, “There seems to be an inherent inability to properly respond and represent the opposing position. Why is that?” Inquirer, answer thyself.

     btw, does a worldview come with a side order of humility?

     LikeLike

132. I am reading because, apart from his rough edges, I enjoy watching Paul make mince meat out of your over ambitious claims. But the real question you should be wondering is, why was Mike K reading Triablogue?

     LikeLike

133. Jack, sorry, but I asked first (and I’m still not bleeding).

     LikeLike

134. Darryl,

     Humility? Surely you jest. I came here and indicate that I had serious questions for a paper I am working on. I have some thoughts that I think may prove helpful in moving the discussion forward. They will not be liked by radicals on either side. Those who conceive of the Christian worldview as a blueprint for any and all things, as well as those who conceive of the Christian worldview’s content equaling the empty set. I am the one who has indicated that some of the claims by worldviewists, or conceptions of what they think Christianity tells us about things other than how to get saved, are overreaching and underdetermined by the Bible. I am the one who said I agree with a lot of your concerns. I am the one who has said that whether the Bible hays things to say relevant for epistemology or science isn’t as important as what it has to say about salvation. I am the one who has answered every question asked of me, interacted with every criticism of my claims, bore dozens of straw men and misrepresentations and caricatures of my position. You have side-stepped, danced, ignored, mocked, joked, ridiculed, dodged and ducked many of my sincere objections to your position as well as my answers to questions I took you to be asking in good faith. You are the one taking the absolutist and no-compromising position here. You are the one who makes absolute claims about what the Bible may say about epistemology. You are the one who simply shrugs off defeaters to your claims. You are the one who tried to bully me. Eventually I got tired of your games. Did I go over board at times? Maybe. But I’m not a genteel person. There’s a saying: You mess with a bull, you get the horns. Given those facts, you then ask me if “worldviewism” comes “with a side order of humility?” Get real, Darryl.

     LikeLike

135. Paul, at the risk of taking my life into my hands, it does seem to me that you have a tall task ahead of you trying to cobble together the via media for Reformed worldviewism and Reformed confessionalism. It strikes me as not too unlike the modern creature who thinks himself somewhere between Augustinian-Calvinism and Arminianism, AKA the “Calminian” or the “1-, 2-, 3-point Calvinist” (has anyone ever heard of “4-, 3- or 2-point Arminians”?). Or maybe the Evangelical Free types who have found a way for credo- and paedobaptism to co-exist.

     But from where I sit, whatever else they entail, experiments like this really only demonstrate that the eager-beaver hasn’t really understood the internal consistencies of either system and, necessarily, how they are by definition fundamentally opposed to each other. I understand this makes me one of your said radicals, but I really don’t see how one can harmonize dueling ecclesiologies (i.e. 1k and 2k) anymore than dueling soteriologies or sacramentologies. Maybe once you’ve harmonized them you could get to work on Trent and sola fide.

     LikeLike

136. Zrim,

     Zrim, the reason “Calminianism” is inconsistent, is because, as Roger Olson has pointed out, the two are contradictory. “The Lord ordains *whatsoever* comes to pass” cannot be smashed together with “the Lord *does not* ordain whatsoever comes to pass.”

     And, actually, credo/paedo co-existence receives a very strong arguments by no less a historian and theologian as David F. Wright, who argues that this dual-practice view was the view practiced by the early church. This position has also been argued by no less a historian and theologian than Ben Witherington. This view was recently defended in the new(er) book, Baptism: Three Views, by Anthony Lane. So, your bifurcation here may well be an example of the fallacy of false dichotomy (oh no, I made another slur!).

     Here’s what I see with respect to “worldviewism.”

     I think the Bible, and the Confession for that matter, imply certain positions to take or views on such diverse matters as: epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, politics, and science.

     Now, I have linked to a post by Dr. James Anderson regarding the first point, I cited Dr. Hart claiming that the Bible has “some” things to say regarding politics (cf. my first post here), and I myself gave one example of the Reformed doctrine of God and how he orders and governs his world spilling over into legal matters and quantum indeterminism (a fairly strongly supported and accepted position within quantum physics).

     Notice that I didn’t argue that for the amount of detail the Bible or the Confession implies about these positions (in my last response to “Bob,” I briefly discussed my view on that), I just claimed that Scripture (and the Confession) did imply some non-trivial propositions within those disciplines. Hence, any view on those positions that contradict those propositions can properly be called “Non-Christian views.”

     I pointed to some inspiration behind my “via media” in Alister McGrath’s The Passionate Intellect. I hinted that there was a mixing of C.S. Lewis and Luther’s theology of the cross.

     My “via negativa” charts a course between over ambituous “blueprint” conceptions of worldview (which I discussed in my last response here to Bob), and overly negative conceptions that seem to imply that there is no Christian view on these matters.

     From where I’m standing, the “blueprint” approach is the cause for most of the problems “worldview” has spawned. Various legitimate views are crowded out and people are called “sinful” for holding to conceptions of the above disciplines that are underdetermined by the biblical (or Confessional) wittness. On the other hand, there are some very important, interesting, relevant, and helpful points that are made by Christianity regarding those disciplines (and others).

     These points are of course not as important, not even close, to, say the importance of justification through faith alone, adoption, the nature of the church, Confessing your faith, to name but a few things. However, they are important. And, many people find them interesting and rather important for their thinking on subjects. Indeed, many lay people. Of course, this can be easily seen by the types of books that sell and the types of conferences that sell out. Should Conferences on Justification sell out? Yeah. But that’s not my point. I’m simply making the *descriptive* and non-normativbe point that lay people *do* find these things interesting and important to their lives. Humans naturally seek to bring all of their experiences together into a coherent whole.

     Of course the above isn’t exhaustive, it’s just a lay-out of my thinking.

     But, I do appreciate you’re guilt-by-association and poisoning of the well in your parting shot that my attempt to point out the good and the bad in worldview thinking is akin to trying to harmionize Trent and sola fide. If I said something like that, it would be a “slur.” But I’ve long given up trying to hold you to your own standards.

     LikeLike

137. Paul,

     Thanks for the psychoanalysis bud, usually a shrink will charge a pretty penny for that, if you need me to cut you a check for your probing insights into my subconscious, just give me a holler. I hope I wasn’t misunderstood here, I am not arguing that worldview is utterly irrelevant, and that a highly developed one isn’t useful in some cases. What I am arguing is that worldview shouldn’t take a status that the confessions hold in the life of the church. My worldview statements were general for a purpose, since I haven’t been able to surmise exactly what your worldview is in your comments, just that you have one and those who question the ultimate value of a stated “Christian Worldview” are evidently in need of some serious book learnin’. I am not so worried about defending Zrim or Dr. Hart here, they are big boys and they can fend for themselves.

     I wish I had the time to deal with each of the issues that you bring up but I will hit on the issue that you seem to be most pressing:

     Biblical Epistemology: I actually do believe there is such a thing – “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge…” However, the question in this epistemology is how expansive and how particular is it (i.e. to what degree does it extend to common sphere activities such as politics, arts, culture, etc.). Additionally how does such knowledge have continuity and discontinuity with worldly knowledge, and how much does the fear of the Lord privilege the true knower? I get the sense that those who most adamantly champion worldview take this epistemology to a more exhaustive particularity that I personally see in the Bible. To show my cards a bit more here, I would argue that this “biblical epistemology” has its emphases in cultic, existential/ethical, and eschatological categories, and here these have a great deal of particularity in informing us the difference between good and evil. However when you expand these to cultural phenomena such as political theory, scientific theory, arts, etc I see many areas where Scripture is actually silent, or is speaks to these in a general fashion, where the main purpose say in the composition of a symphony is to honor God, that doesn’t necessarily have a bearing on the musical structure of the composition.

     I have less of a problem with those who tout some form of worldview, and in the past I was very much concerned with this. However, maybe through the brutality of life since my early enthusiastic twenties, I am far more inclined to the sufficiency of Scripture as articulated in the Confession, since these seem to adequately present Christianity as the religion of the broken heart, than I am of formulating a worldview that seems to place a great deal of emphasis on this-worldly affairs.

     If you want to interact more with the epistemology question, I’d be happy to (you’ve got my contact info), but for Pete’s sake, put down the blowtorch.

     LikeLike

138. Hi Jed,

     You psychoanalyzed, so I was a Jed to the Jed (all things to all men).

     “What I am arguing is that worldview shouldn’t take a status that the confessions hold in the life of the church.”

     Why are you bothering arguing that? Who here has said that it should take the status the confessions hold? You addressed your comment to me, so did you take me as saying this (especially when I denied it three or four times)? If not, what was the point of your berating me?

     “My worldview statements were general for a purpose, since I haven’t been able to surmise exactly what your worldview is in your comments, just that you have one and those who question the ultimate value of a stated “Christian Worldview” are evidently in need of some serious book learnin’.

     Really? Quote me to that effect, Jed. I specifically argued against those who denied that they even had one, or denied that Christianity implies propositions about and stances toward various non-theological disciplines.

     “I wish I had the time to deal with each of the issues that you bring up but I will hit on the issue that you seem to be most pressing:”

     Oh, good, this is what I’ve been asking for.

     “Biblical Epistemology: I actually do believe there is such a thing – “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge…” However, the question in this epistemology is how expansive and how particular is it (i.e. to what degree does it extend to common sphere activities such as politics, arts, culture, etc.).”

     This is a let down 😦 I actually cited a paper by Dr. Anderson making this claim, and I made it myself more than once. (Btw, the extent applies to all things we claim to know. When one claims to know something, and when ‘know’ is given a particular analysis, then this analysis applies to whatever they say they know. So if someone S claims to “know” some political proposition p, and if we, ad arguendo, analyse ‘know’ as “justified true belief,” then this means that S has a justified true belief that p.)

     “Additionally how does such knowledge have continuity and discontinuity with worldly knowledge, and how much does the fear of the Lord privilege the true knower?”

     Assuming I even know what you mean here, John Frame discusses this, so does James Anderson, and so did Van Til. It would be good to take some of the putative analysis of the situation as starting points. I assume you’ve read them since you’re making claims about it all? I hope it doesn’t seem arrogant, but I generally assume it’s wise to read some of the relevant literature on subjects we wish to pontificate about.

     “To show my cards a bit more here, I would argue that this “biblical epistemology” has its emphases in cultic, existential/ethical, and eschatological categories, and here these have a great deal of particularity in informing us the difference between good and evil.”

     Well, as David VanDrunen argues, the “fear of the Lord” is common terminology for “natural law” or “common” or, for Hart, “secular” categories (see DVD’s monograph, A Biblical Case for Natural Law).

     Besides that, I can’t really make heads or tails of this. When we’re speaking about epistemology, we usually use the categories epistemologists use. How much epistemology have you read in order to weigh in on this topic? Isn’t it a critique of the Confessionalists that Reformed laymen think they can weigh in on any topic whatever just because they’re Reformed? Traditionally, those who have made claims about “biblical epistemology” have meant to discuss what the Bible has to say about common or traditional epistemological matters, i.e., the analysis of knowledge, the nature of justification or warrant, the subject, object, and relation of knowledge, the standard of knowledge, the extent of knowledge and the warrant for skepticism, etc.

     “However when you expand these to cultural phenomena such as political theory, scientific theory, arts, etc I see many areas where Scripture is actually silent, or is speaks to these in a general fashion. . . .”

     Of course, I made this point too. Obviously, the relevant debate would be on just how “general” or “particular” things stay or get.

     I’m left wondering why you ventured into a discussion and pretended like you were arguing against my stance here when you actually stated many of the things I argued for here. Why would you enter the discussion without reading what went on before you? This seems totally irresponsible.

     As far as the blow torch, see my explanation to Hart in my September 2, 2010 at 12:32 pm post.

     LikeLike

139. Paul, I AM THE ONE who asked you how DVD’s book on NL and 2K changed or altered your view of worldview. YOU ARE THE ONE who did not answer.

     LikeLike

140. DVD,

     I already answered this claim by you above. Go back and re-read the thread. I ended off by placing a burden on your shoulders, and I’m still waiting for your reply. Moreover, let’s even grant you this point. This would be ONE question I didn’t answer compared to virtually ALL of mine that YOU did not answer.

     And, just to help jog your memory:

     * I made some specific claims about Van Til.

     * You came in and asserted that DVD’s book on NL and 2K had some relevance to those specific comments I made.

     * My answer was that DVD did not critique those specific Van Tillian insights I pulled from. I asked you to show me where DVD undermined the specific claims I made in this thread.

     So, that’s the dialectical context of dialogue you find yourself in.

     Put differently, let’s call the Van Tilliams claims I employed here VT1, VT2, and VT3. Those are the propositions relevant to this thread. Now, let’s grant, arguendo, that DVD rebutes some Van Tillian claims we’ll call VT4, VT5, and VT6. If I didn’t appeal to VT4 -> VT6, then what is the purpose of your red herring appeal to DVD’s refutation (granted ad arguendo) of them? I specifically appealed to VT1 -> VT3 in support of some of my claims here. Therefore, to offer an appropriate and relevant defeater of my arguments, you would need to employ arguments against VT1 -> VT3, since those are the premises I used, and not arguments against VT4 -> VT…n.

     There, now that you’ve made such a big deal about this, and I’ve clearly laid out your failing, the gauntlet has been thrown down and you find yourself in the awkward position of actually having to do some actual arguing rather than dismissing. or you can just dodge and dance another jig. However, since the dialectical situation has been clearly laid out, what you can’t do (well, at least “can’t” in terms of rational acceptability) is offer another one of your one line dismissals. So, ball’s in your court. Oh, sorry, you’re a baseball guy. I think the term is, “You’re up!”

     LikeLike

141. Sheesh, that’s the second time I called you DVD, Sorry.

     LikeLike

142. Paul,

     Pistols at dawn?

     I can say nothing that will crack your circular worldviewishly informed mind. My only rational basis for disagreeing is that it the worldview ideology does not make sense of reality. Wendell Berry does not have a Christian worldview. Nor does Leon Kass. Yet, I know of no Christian who is as wise as either of these men. You may claim that this stems from my own poorly formed worldview. And I’d respond that you need to get outside your circular philosophy more.

     hugs and shoves, dgh

     LikeLike

143. DGH

     How would you know that you can say nothing that would crack my worldview informed mind (even though we all have worldview informed minds)? You haven’t even tried. Well, I take it back. You have said things, you have announced things, but what you have not done, and it appears you refuse to do, is to argue for those things. I do not normally “change my mind” just because some dude with a bow tie says X, even though I admire bow ties. However, I have changed my mind quite often when people have presented arguments for positions, and I have weighed those arguments, and concluded that the propositions they support are better supported or more rational to accept than their denials.

     Now, above you said something about reality informing theory. You have this a priori theory that I don’t or won’t change my mind. but here’s the reality: I changed my mind from atheism to Christianity. I changed my mind from Theonomy. I changed my mind on “redeeming culture”. I changed my mind about the (strong modal) transcendental argument for God’s existence (I don’t think it’s been successfully shown). I changed my mind on Van Tillian/Bahnsenian interpretations of “all men know God” (if the ‘all’ is universal and the ‘know’ is propositional knowledge) — I now withhold judgment, but a negative appraisal has a higher degree of warrant for me now. I changed my mind on the role of religion in the public square. I changed my mind on many metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical positions. I changed from Classical Compatibilism to Semi-Compatibilism. And I could keep going.

     Anyway, I sure wish some of your fans (isn’t that ironic given what you wrote in Deconstructing Evangelicalism about the celebrity status many hold in the church?) would come in and offer you some corrective. You have literally dodged every single question and arguments I’ve asked. If they think your dismissive one-liners and jokes are sufficient as response to my many sincere questions and arguments, that speaks loudly about the state of much of internet warrior confessionalism. You dont’ care to discuss these matters. You care to assert and then mock and caricature all those who dare oppose you. That is classica anti-intellectualism. it is tyranical abuse of authority writ large.

     LikeLike

144. My only rational basis for disagreeing is that it the worldview ideology does not make sense of reality. Wendell Berry does not have a Christian worldview. Nor does Leon Kass. Yet, I know of no Christian who is as wise as either of these men. You may claim that this stems from my own poorly formed worldview. And I’d respond that you need to get outside your circular philosophy more.

     Again, for the tenth time, I never suggested any of this. Van Til directly refutes this conception you have of what ‘worldview ideology’ says, at least as he’s presented it and I’ve presented it here. Since I specifically denied this, more than once, isn’t this lying? Where are your moral police this time? Where’s Zrim and Jed to berate you? Don’t they care about truth? Don;t they care about lying? If I lied about you they’d be all up in my business. Group-think, yes-man, bobble-head ideology isn’t better than worldview ideology, Darryl.

     LikeLike

145. It seems like I may be violating a proverb by doing this, but may I intervene?

     Paul, x=x. Or in the words of that analytical philosopher William Belichick, “it is what it is.” My point is that this is a certain kind of forum. DGH effectively provokes thoughts in his chosen areas. Responses to objections are then short, often clever, and sometimes curmudgeonly. It’s not a place well-suited for nuanced philosophical dialogues. It’s not a forum subject to the Due Process Clause of the US Constitution. And, since you are anonymous, it’s not like your good name is being slandered. You might find this forum less frustrating if you take it for what it is and speak the language of the forum. Your earnest and intelligent concerns may be better voiced in some other forum or for one-on-one email conversation.

     Or, borrowing an analogy from above, you don’t walk into hip-hop bar and demand a line dance, and you don’t walk into a coffee shop next to the Art School expecting to get some good ideas on how to build your deck.

     Now, if that vague proverb in my head is true, both sides will now attack me.

     LikeLike

146. Be careful, Michael, you’re just a “fan” of a “celebrity” out of control with ALL HIS AUTHORITY. (Sheesh, I wish my cats and wife knew this.) But you’re right. This is a blog. Not even Black Board could handle Paul’s expectations.

     LikeLike

147. Paul, you changed your mind from atheism to Christianity? That doesn’t sound very Reformed or Van Tillian.

     Maybe that was a mistep, but it seems to run with a pretty high estimate of reason (read: Paul’s reason).

     So please update me on how you account for the wisdom of Berry and Kass. It’s hard to keep up with all of your comments.

     BTW, why does this have to be a moral probation? Why can’t it be a conversation, you know, like in a blog?

     LikeLike

148. Darryl,

     Here’s my response (grant me by Michael Mann): Fremfram frillop, manholes and lollipos, gerstanrd. Therefore: theonomy. hey bro, lay off! This is just a drunken pub where we don’t need to give actual reasons for our assertions.

     Here’s my expectations: When you ask a question, I assume it’s sincere. When you offer a defeater, I assume it’s sincere. When I argue down a claim of yours, I don’t expect to see it re-asserted as if I never said anything. This is just common courtesy.

     “Paul, you changed your mind from atheism to Christianity? That doesn’t sound very Reformed or Van Tillian.”

     Really, why not? Will I get an answer here? Or is this another one of your butt naked assertions? (I’m waiting with anticipation to see you deduce from my statement a denial of irresistable grace, effectual calling, etc. Most likely you’re doing a Darryl. To “do a Darryl” is to imagine and find all these crazy subtexts that are not implied or entailed by a proposition, but then pretend that they are and impute the imagined subtext into the text. Moreover, it is to deny the reality of the realm of secondary causation — which is why you denied apologetic training for believers with doubts. God just magicallly keeps then in the faith. Moreover, my mind once affirmed this proposition: There is no God. It now affirms this proposition: There is a God. How didn’t I change my mind? To say I changed my mind is to say something true. It isn’t to suggest, and neither is this implied in my statement, that *I* pulled MYSELF up by MY on bootstraps and by a sheer force of autonomous will, changed my beliefs. And besides all of that, I’m not a doxastic voluntarist. So, Darryl, what the heck do you mean?

     “So please update me on how you account for the wisdom of Berry and Kass. It’s hard to keep up with all of your comments.”

     Because they have brains and minds that function at a higher conceptual and analytical and imaginative speed than most other people. Like there are some people that have a natural gid-given ability to hit a major league pitcher 30% of the time, and some people who play beautiful music due to their god-given talents, and some people’s minds are in similar positions. They can “see” things average people can’t. That should be enough for a start, tell me if you want me to elaborate.

     “BTW, why does this have to be a moral probation? Why can’t it be a conversation, you know, like in a blog?”

     Because that’s what I’ve been getting from your fans I thought they desired a regular feature of our cognitive design plan: consistency. Anyway, I appreaciate your comment here. So why don;t you tell the Puritanical Debbie Do Goods to lay off? It’s just a blog.

     LikeLike

149. And, Michael, unfortunately, what you say doesn’t stand up to reality. When Darryl goes to other blogs where it is expected and assumed reasons will be given for assertions, questions will be answered and vice versa, defeated claims will not be re-asserted without defeating the defeater, and the general tone will be more rigorous and “scholarly,” Darryl pulls the exact same stuff he does here. Darryl does it everywhere I see him interacting with others. So you excuse doesn’t seem to get him quite off the hook. But, thanks for trying, bro.

     And what has Darryl’s methods got us after 140 some odd posts? Shouldn’t we have progress? Doesn’t he want a “conversation?” Well, why’s he ignoring my side of the conversation and asking me the same question 20 times in a row? Why is he repeating the exact same “objections” to my position when it is clear I answered them? Why was he pointing out to everyone that he had asked me a question I did not answer, demanding I answer it, but when it was pointied out that I did answer it and the placed a burden on his shoulders, he totally blew me off. What do you make of that? Frankly, your Hart apologetics don’t seem very cogent. Did you have a transcendental argument for Hart (TAH) you wanted to use instead?

     LikeLike

150. Briefly, Paul, I think we have read a lot of the same stuff. VanTil with his presupp, Bahnsen with his TA, enough Dooyweerd so that I actually understood his vocabulary, etc. I have read (and bought, DGH!) several of Darryl’s books in the last year. I have been greatly informed by his critique of evangelicalism and his defense of confessionalism. I am not yet sold on his version of 2K or his critique of worldviewism. (wrd?) So I come here for various reasons, including kicking the tires on 2k and his view of worldview. But when I kick the tires, I will expect exchanges that are typical of this blog: short comments, challenging questions, humor, and good-natured snark. I don’t figure I can make someone else’s blog conform to me. And, to the extent that I can, I will speak the language of the blog in return. That’s what missionaries do, right? Or do they just yell at the natives?

     LikeLike

151. Michael, we sound pretty similar, but what about my humor?

     I’m also not too sure Darryl likes the fact that both defenses of him have pointed out that he mostly offers irrelevant and substanceless responses to his interloctuors. But speaking of funny, I find that hilarious.

     LikeLike

152. So DGH, here’s my puzzle over your rejection of worldview.

     Granted: there are a lot of definitions floating around out there. I’ve just been getting slightly up to speed on David Naugle and discovering that I’m not a worldviewist in exactly the same way that he is a worldviewist.

     By on my account, our “worldview” is simply the mental reflection of our heart.

     And when I hear you reject the concept of “worldview”, I hear you rejecting the notion that people have a heart, or else that it has any impact on our thoughts. Which seems nonsensical.

     When further I hear you reject the notion of a “Christian worldview”, I hear you rejecting the idea that our hearts are converted, that there is any mental difference (not talking IQ here, but content of thoughts) between Christians and non-. And that seems nonsensical also.

     It seems basic and unarguable — to me — that Christians ought to be careful to understand and to guard their hearts. This is why we warn seminarians about Bultmann, right?

     And I would think that of all people, Confessionalists would be on board with the idea of guarding the heart by proper doctrine, which I take to be the Christian worldview: the mental reflection of the truth that we want the heart to believe.

     So where are we?

     LikeLike

153. Ahem

     “Wherever there is tension between the biblical worldview and that of the pre-Christian West, Milbank sides with the latter.” (Horton, People and Place, 61).

     “The demand that theological statements have meaning only if they refer to an extra-linguistic reality therefore seems to reflect a more Platonic than Hebraic worldview.” (ibid, 41, n.17).

     Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (M. G. Kline, Overland Park, KS: Two Age Press 2000).

     “Covenental history is not an allegory for more ostensibly basic eternal truths, but is itself constitutive of reality. Covenant is not something added to metaphysics and ontology derived from some other sources, but generates a worldview of its own. (Horton, Covenant and Salvation: Union With Christ, 3).

     “Thus [Israel’s] worldview engendered a history rather than a mythological cycle of nature” (Horton, Introducing Covenant Theology, 30).

     “The covenantal background of the biblical sacraments discloses a worldview far removed from the Greek one we have inherited from this point.” (ibid, 153).

     “We are ‘storied’ people and cannot help but think of ourselves as somehow characters in a plot. Worldviews are, in fact, storied plots: the story of America, the story of political liberation, the story of global captialism, the story of alienation (existentialism), the story of progess (modernism), and the story of no-story-but-only-stories (postmodernism) (Horton, A Better Way, 53).

     “In fact, to commit the cardinal postmodern sin, we can’t even say it’s a worldview, a metanarative (the story behind every story).” (ibid).

     “If I am to set forth a Christian view of bioethics, then I must provide at least a general perspective . . .” (David VanDrunen, Bioethics and the Christian Life, 23).

     “. . . Christian bioethics rests on theological truths unkown to the broader world and hence cannot be substantively identical to secular bioethics.” (ibid, 28).

     “Christians should participate in the mainstream healthcare system and contribute to bioethical debates, while recognizing that their Christian faith has radically transformed their perspective on many important issues of life and death” (ibid, 29).

     “. . .Christians must also shape their individual and communal views of bioethics in accord with their distinctive theological convictions. The range of Christian truth about matters such as the image of God, suffering, death, and resurrection cannot help but mold their perspective on bioethics. Scripture’s teaching should aid Christians in understanding the kind of bioethics that should govern all people in the public realm” (ibid, 30).

     “What is distinctive about the Christian view of courage is that the will of God determines what is good and worth pursuing . . . .”(ibid, 85).

     “I should note a few points before beginning to evaluate infertility treatments from a Christian point of view (ibid, 129).

     “Scripture does not speak of football games, but it speaks to them” (R.S. Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confessions).

     🙂

     LikeLike

154. There we go. Nicely played, Paul.

     LikeLike

155. Jeff (and maybe Paul),

     Let’s not strain at gnats about “worldview.” Nobody is saying there is no such thing as a worldview. We all know everybody has a worldview. Indeed, this is actually an important point in 2K: different people have different outlooks (e.g. politics) when it comes to the temporal order. 2K wants to protect everyone’s liberty to have his temporal outlook and keep one from saying that his temporal outlook is also heaven’s and thus bind the conscience of the other. This point, obviously, assumes there are various outlooks or worldviews, etc. There is a place for binding the conscience, but it is only in places where God has spoken and not where he is silent. He has told us that Jesus was fully God and fully man, that justification is by faith alone and that infants of believers should be baptized; he has not told us whether we should have kings or presidents (and either way, whose rule enjoys Jesus’ favor more), big government or small, or whether or not to invade desert lands.

     The contrast here is not worldview versus non-worldview, that would be silly. The contrast is temporal-as-temporal worldview versus temporal-as-eternal worldview. This was my point above about Reformed (or Christian) narcissism: “I am Reformed/Christian; I think X; therefore X is Reformed/Christian.” The contrast has to do with a form of religious narcissism that is in the ballpark of (brace yourself) idolatry. In that sense, that is actually what idolatry is, the conflating of Creator/creature, casting one’s creaturely ways and thoughts as the Creator’s. But his ways and thoughts are not ours, as you know. So 2K is not trying to say something as absurd as “there is no such thing as a worldview.” All it’s saying is that there is no such thing as your worldview or mine also being Jesus’.

     “Michael Mann,” just a kudos on your point about forums. Spot on. It must be that grasp on media that was at play when you produced “Miami Vice.”

     LikeLike

156. Zrim,

     Sorry, bud, but the point hasn’t just been, “do people have worldviews?” (though Hart seemed to deny this at a point), but whether there is “the Biblical view of X” or “a Christian view of X,” where X is a “temporal” or non-theological discipline.

     Hart denied most of the above. He asked me, “So I have a worldview even if I deny it?” Hart denied that there was “a Christian view of . . .”. Hart denies that “a worldview” could determine and produce a thing like “a history.” We see “a Christian view of” bioethics. Indeed, one of Hart’s main points was that “regeneration” doesn’t do something to “the mind” that allows “Christians” to see “the truth” easier than non-Christians. But check out DVD: “their Christian faith has radically transformed their perspective on many important issues of life and death.” Another one of Hart’s main points was the language of “the Christian worldview.” But Hortion says, “the biblical worldview.”

     If you don’t think my quotes totally undercut Hart’s many statements here, then you haven’t been reading him. Moreover, if you’re admitting with me, and with the above, that there is “a Christian view of” matters like: history, science, politics, epistemology, metaethics, ethics, law, etc., then there’s nothing else for me to argue here for that is what I’ve been arguing from point one. I also argued for what I mean when I say those thing. I wrote you a lengthy response to your question about via media (which you haven’t responded to) and showed (some of) what I mean by saying what I’ve said. So, wordlview isn’t a “blueprint” for all of these things. However, Christianity has propositions that have implications for those things. And therefore if you have a view of those things which denies or ignores those implications, then your view on them is “unChristian.” So, the childrens catechism, for example, teaches this that we “have a soul as well as a body,” and that we “have a soul that can never die.” Since our body dies, then the catechism teaches some form of dualism about man. Moreover, this dualism is not propterty dualism. And any materialist view of man is false. But, there are various dualisms that could work here (Thomistic, Cartesian, Holistic, and Emergent). Neither the Bible or the Confession weighs in on those matters. So, there’s freedom of conscience. But there is not freedom to hold to property dualism or Christian materialism. This has implications for philosophy, metaphysics, and neuroscience (because if you ask a, say, V.S. Ramachandran, he’ll claim that you’re just a backwoods fundy who denies science). There are many other implications of dualism that we’ll just avoid for the moment. So, here we see a Christian and Confessional view of man that has implications for many non-theological matters. We have seen “a Christian view of X” that both binds the conscience and allows for significant difference, debate, reflection, and further study.

     If you agree with me then you affirm every single point I’ve been making since my first post. What say you so that I can get on with my business?

     LikeLike

157. Paul, one reason that this post has over 150 comments is that you’ve made 120 of them. I’d say that’s obsessive. Are you off your meds?

     And the reason for people pointing out the morality of all this has to be that you keep making it a matter of morality — as if not having a worldview is a moral failure.

     Jeff, I don’t like worldview because it makes Christians into Kantians and Hegelians. I don’t see how that epistemological turn is particularly useful for faithfulness. I do see the leverage it gives for transformationalism and culture warriorism. But since I’m not a fan of those, you expect me to get on board with it? As for the heart, come on Jeff, I’m no sucker for pietism.

     I also have problems with worldview because it privileges philosophy. Lots of average Christians, myself included, are not philosophically or epistemologically inclined. I don’t see how pumping worldivew up on steroids as the blueprint for godliness is going to help people memorize the catechism or worship in a Reformed manner. I don’t want to transform the world, or mental constructions of it. I want a faithful church. Worldview has not given us that. I’d actually argue (see the CRC) that is has destroyed faithfulness. But I know, this isn’t very philosophical. It’s just reality.

     LikeLike

158. Darryl, Michael Mann said this is a joke blog and that your responses are cool because you’re so funny. So, what color is a burp? Burple. (I kill me.)

     Saying 150 is obsessive is as good as an argument as saying that 150,000 makes you “rich.” Does it? Maybe compared to someone who has $1000. Not compared to Bill Gates.

     There wouldn’t have been as many comments if you would have conceed to my initial points, as St. Zriminski just did. I would have left quite early.

     Moreover, another reason there are so many comments is because you ask so many questions that (a) are red herrings, (b) besides the point, and (c) you don’t care about the answer.

     I am not bringing up morality except as a tu quoque. It’s your fans who continue to make this a matter of morality. I never made it a matter of morality.

     And Zrimster, did you see that, Hart suggested AGAIN that he doesn’t have a worldview.

     Darryl, can you have bother to think before you post? I know that’s asking a lot.

     LikeLike

159. Ok, Paul, there is such a thing as a biblical worldview. It’s called 2k. And while there is no such thing as Christian you-name-it, there is such a thing as Christians doing you-name-it. Why is that so hard? And, yes, “Christian faith has radically transformed [their] perspective on many important issues of life and death.” For my own part, it has helped to have quite a critical view on pro-lifery, as in it being a function of idolizing the highest temporal good life itself, you know that thing Jesus told us to hate if we want to follow him? Indeed, it has been so “radical” even others notice it when they call it so, and it even gets the panties of Reformed logicians in quite a bunch.

     LikeLike

160. Paul, has it really come to this. Without a worldview I can’t even think?

     I went back and read your initial comments. Dare I say it was more like 64 questions, and that was only in the first 3 or 4 comments. You’re like a student who won’t go away. And I don’t say that patronizingly because you say you are trying to learn and are writing a paper. (What kind of worldview sends you to a blog to do research? ahem, indeed.)

     So what do you want me to say, Paul? That you are right and I am wrong? That I’m an indiot and your are brilliant. I really don’t know what you’re after. I’ve written enough here (and elsewhere) not to be evasive. I actually try to answer questions. But you ask so many. So what is your bottom line (or is it just that you’re a pain in the bottom).

     LikeLike

161. Darryl,

     You said, “That I’m an indiot“. Way to make fun of Indians, along with me. And not having a worldview does wonders for your spelling.

     There, now I have given a DHG 100% approved comment. What did I win?

     Now, to end with my most substantive, and irrefutable, point yet: Okay, so two guys walk into a bar . . . one of them ducks.

     LikeLike

162. Paul, so this was all a joke? Now I get it. Worldview is laughable.

     LikeLike

163. Darryl,

     Sorry, I heard another joke, and it was too funny to pass up, so I had to post again. This is like old school Murphy, Pryor, and Kinison, it’s that funny. It goes along with my jokes from the comedians above, i.e., R.S. Clark, M. Horton, M. Kline, and D. VanDrunen. Here’s the new joke:

     “Non-Christians do not accept or acknowledge Christ’s Lordship over the civil kingdom. This is the basis for the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian ways of thinking and doing.” (Kim Riddlebarger, A Two Kingdoms Primer, The Ridleblog).

     Man, didn’t you tell him about Berry and Kass?

     LikeLike

164. Does not regeneration cause one to believe and trust in Christ and the Word which he embodied and lived out as a witness to God the Father and conversely cause us to distrust our own minds which have a great propensity to be idol factories? Our reality then is formed and shaped by the Word of God rather then our own autonomous reflections on what happens to us or we observe in this material world God created. We no longer can interpret reality with our own autonomous minds without considering what God tells us is true reality in His Word (which is a combination of metaphysical and empirical reality). Philosophy can only speculate about the metaphysical without the Word of God. It is the interplay between the Word of God and our own fallen mental attributes that cause us problems in interpreting how to live in the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of man. Along with this God only speaks to us analogically which is never exhaustive in detail. We can never know what God knows about the material world he created (or about anything for that matter) We can only know what he chooses to reveal to us. So, there has to be a Christian (or biblical) epistemology because God has chosen to reveal to us a knowledge of both the metaphysical and the physical in His infallible Word. It does take a great deal of work on our part to both interpret the scriptures right and glean what we can from God’s created material world some substansive things about God’s character and nature. Reality becomes more clear as we use both our regenerated mental faculties and the help God reveals to us in His Word. We can no longer be autonomous in our thinking. We must take into consideration what the Word of God says in our interpretations.

     So, what did Scott Clark mean when he said that “Scripture does not speak of football games but it speaks to them?” I am assuming he is making a comment on the idolatry of football in America and it being played on the Sabbath. Scripture then is speaking to the football idolatry which is a big part of the American psyche. But I am probably interpreting that wrongly. I suppose it also could have something to do with fair play in all the games we play. There is always an interplay between the Word of God and our various mental faculties and we often interpret them wrongly.

     Can anyone tell me what has been learned in all these posts? What I take away from it all is that the noetic influence of sin in our minds is still very much a problem we have to contend with. It is only through the hard work of seeking to interpret the scriptures rightly and learning how to use our regenerated mental faculties better that some clarity can be gained. Unfortunately, most of us have not been trained properly in how to do this. We also resist more clarity because of our sin. We are wondering around in the darkness and do not indulge ourselves in the light God has given us enough. We are supposed to be able to depend on our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to help give us more clarity but we can never trust that completely either in this life. We are all prone to error.

     LikeLike

165. Paul, I think your laughing caused your mind to skip a beat. You said above that Van Til does not require us to think that Berry and Kass do not have Christian worldviews. Now you quote Riddlebarger to suggest there is an antithesis between you on the one side and Berry and Kass on the other.

     So the punch line is, what, that Paul is the brother of the guy who thinks he’s a chicken and Paul won’t take him in for help because Paul needs the eggs?

     LikeLike

166. Yo, DGH, you’ll catch on to my pithy wit soon enough. Old Life is a place for jokes and curmudgeonly musings. My comments will fit the Old Life style. As for you, get with the program. For example, I’ve clearly been citing 2K advocates saying things that supposedly the worldviewists say. So you’ll understand why I have a hard time taking you seriously. Paradigmatic 2Kers sound like Hartian caricatures of worldviewers. Now that’s a hoot, and a knee slapper. Got any more gut-busters for us? (And I said above that Van Til does not require us to think that Berry and Kass need to be regenerate to know things.)

     LikeLike

167. Paul, for a guy who doesn’t take this blog seriously, you sure do make a lot of comments. Now that is funny.

     LikeLike

168. DGH, that comment would only be funny if you had the numbers of comments I make at blogs I take seriously. “A lot” is hopeless vague. Steeeeeerike three. Man, I can feel the wind from your wiffs way up in the cheap seats. But besides my punching your irrelevant response to my September 5, 2010 at 2:41 comment squarely in the nose (this is still a rowdy bar kind of a blog, right), you failed to interact with the punchline of my joke. Why are all these paragdigmatic 2Kers acting like Hartian caricatures of eeeeeeeevangelical worldviewers? Now that’s funny.

     LikeLike

169. Paul: you wrote “. . . my September 5, 2010 at 2:41 comment. . .” You catalog them?

     LikeLike

170. DGH, you wrote, “You catalog them?” Um, no; you do. Just call my Nolan Ryan (in his prime), you just keep swinging and a missing, even when you’re being less substantive than usual.

     Never hit a man with glasses, hit him with a hammer instead. Bad-a-bing!

     LikeLike

171. Besides, didn’t you reference how many comments I had made? Do you save them and study how to argue from them? I’m flattered.

     LikeLike

172. Paul, you don’t seem to understand that players in a baseball game do not also function as umpires. Oh, that’s right, with a worldview you are prosecution, judge, and jury.

     In point of fact, you have submitted almost 75 comments to this post (out of a total of 171). You may take that as a form of flattery. It could be a reason to see a counselor (biblical, of course).

     LikeLike

173. DGH, you don’t seem to understand that umpires are needed to call strikes when it needs to be determined if the ball was within the strike zone, not when a player clumsily whiffs at the pitch. In cases of whiffs, it’s just obvious that batter has stiked. Take your response to me here, for example.

     So in point of fact you do catologue my comments. Weird. Do you have a picture of me up in your bathroom that you stare at while you drizzle olive oil over your body, wearing only your polka-dotted bow tie? Now who needs to see Ed Welch?

     LikeLike

174. DGH: As for the heart, come on Jeff, I’m no sucker for pietism.

     Pietism … pietism … hmm … Oh yes, I remember pietism now. Pietists, apparently, are people who speak of “the heart.” That’s not the definition I recall from my church history classes, but you’re the expert on such matters.

     It’s such a shame that pietists have made such inroads into Reformed circles.

     Here’s Johannes “Zinzendorf” Calvin:

     In the first place, he mentions knowledge, and in the second, true righteousness and holiness. Hence we infer, that at the beginning the image of God was manifested by light of intellect, rectitude of heart, and the soundness of every part. – Inst. 1.15.4

     And the Westminster “Halle” Assembly:

     To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same; making intercession for them, and revealing unto them, in and by the word, the mysteries of salvation; effectively persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their hearts by his word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner, and ways, as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation. — WCoF 8.8

     And let’s not forget James “Spener” the brother of Jesus:

     Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil.

     With all of these pietist influences introducing their talk of “the heart”, penetrating into the very Reformed systematic theologies, confessions, *yea even Scripture itself* — one could almost be forgiven for thinking that the heart is the seat of one’s inmost thoughts and desires, and a genuine Reformed and Biblical concept.

     Almost.

     LikeLike

175. But seriously: I do appreciate your point about the talk of worldview constituting a “privilege” of philosophy. I can see areas of the church (Calvin College comes to mind) where doctrine has become unfashionable and worldview has replaced it.

     And I join you in deploring such.

     But I also ask … did you notice the first go-round that I defined the “Christian worldview” as “doctrine”?

     In other words, the Confessions constitute, in my corner of the world at least, a Christian worldview. There’s no sense of privileging philosophy in that, even though I have a hankering for philosophy myself.

     As to dragging Christians in a Hegelian or Kantian direction: I would take this a little more seriously if REPT weren’t so obviously Aristotelian. Why are dead Greek guys more acceptable sources of Christian philosophy than dead German guys?

     LikeLike

176. Zrim: Let’s not strain at gnats about “worldview.” Nobody is saying there is no such thing as a worldview. We all know everybody has a worldview.

     OK, good. For the record, it sure did seem like certain folk were denying the very existence of worldview. But if we want to stipulate that everybody has a worldview, I’m cool.

     In fact, if you want to go further and stipulate that SOTC is a kind of Christian worldview, I would jump up and down with joy.

     For the thrust of some of my criticism has been that SOTC functions as a kind of worldview that sits uneasily within Calvinism. Obviously, we disagree on that. But if you can bear with me for a moment, here’s the criticism in a nutshell:

     JRC: SOTC is a defining paradigm that privileges certain extrabiblical ideas and thereby binds the consciences of believers.

     One of those ideas is that the law of God written on the heart functions not merely negatively, to judge mankind, but positively also, as the basis for civil society. Out of that flows the idea that Christians may and should rely on the natural law in their dealings in the common. And from that flows the methodology in play here: to criticize any “confusion of cult and culture” on the grounds that cult and culture are always separate.

     To my mind, this binds the conscience of, say, a Christian magistrate, so that he is subject to undue criticism if he attempts to use Scripture to guide his public moral reasoning.

     Put bluntly, SOTC sides with secularists in criticizing Christians for trying reason like Christians in the public arena. Nevermind the question of whether they reason well or poorly; the only question for SOTC is “Did they confuse cult and culture? WRONG!”

     Even if we disagree, can you appreciate that it is a red flag for me that the phrase “cult and culture” becomes the primary diagnostic tool for SOTC, when such phrase is never explicitly found in Scripture? Not even the Confession?

     So if we’re thinking about worldview and the potential for it to swallow up Scripture, I would ask you to train your own sights homeward for a moment.

     And maybe I’m wrong. Maybe cult and culture is a perfectly legit paradigm and Kline was just right about that. But if so: why isn’t it in the Confession?

     LikeLike

177. Jeff, you want to talk heart, I know plenty of old ladies who would be glad for the fellowship. I’m afraid you’ll have to lose your mind, though. Surely, talk of the heart after the romantics and the quest for authenticity might need some readjustment.

     And as for language usage, I didn’t know that Aristotle spoke the language of REPT. I do seem to recall that Hegel and Kant speak of worldviews. And I also thought they were wrong about a lot of things, especially from a Reformed world and life view.

     So maybe we don’t use that language but have our own, like our confession of faith, or our body of belief, or our common profession. But how the Trinity shapes my view of historical development, I’m not about to say because I don’t think it does. And when doctrine is put to ideas have consequences use, it usually does bad things for the doctrine and the consequences.

     LikeLike

178. To my mind, this binds the conscience of, say, a Christian magistrate, so that he is subject to undue criticism if he attempts to use Scripture to guide his public moral reasoning. Put bluntly, SOTC sides with secularists in criticizing Christians for trying reason like Christians in the public arena.

     Jeff, the point has been made repeatedly here that believers necessarily take their faith with them into the public square (recall the tipping analogy where the biblical virtues of generosity and prudence are referenced), that we are not hermetically sealed off from our faith in our public doings, etc. The point isn’t whether our faith is relevant in our public actions, it’s how. New Schoolers are marked by “wearing their piety on their sleeve,” Old Schoolers see that as more vice than virtue. That principle has various implications for the public expression of faith, and one is that is simpy an inappropriate expression of faith to explicitly use the Bible to rule.

     This has nothing all to do with being ashamed or wanting to loved by pagans. Indeed, this is a remarkably uncharitable way to interpret what really is an honest attempt to be obedient and proper about things and only goes to show how poorly you misunderstand what is being said, if I may be so bold. A Christian secularist is not a legal secularist. Believe it or not, 2k-SOTC is also “trying reason like Christians in the public arena.”

     LikeLike

179. Paul, why use a hammer when a worldview inflicts as much damage (and delusion)?

     LikeLike

180. Darryl, because I read Shop Class as Soulcraft, that’s why. I think you read that too. So I’m at a loss as to why you devalue the value of hammers.

     LikeLike

181. Zrim,

     While I can certainly appreciate your attempts at moving the goalposts and redirecting attention away from what was affirmed here by 2Kers, but in the service of the truth I can’t sit buy.

     Hart denied worldview. Hart said, “So do I have a worldview even if I deny it?”

     Also, what was denied was that there was “the Christian view of” (but Horton used that language), and that there was “a Christian view of X,” where ‘X’ stands for epistemology, science, metaphysics, law, freedom and moral responsibility, etc.

     THAT WAS DENIED, ZRIM. And my quotes showed paradigmatic 2Kers talking like Hartian caricatures of worldviewers.

     LikeLike

182. Darryl, if needs be, I will use Zrim’s worldview instead of my hammer. Surely you think his worldview inflicts great damage, but somehow it is priviledged so as not to be delusional. I’d love to see the math on how that works.

     LikeLike

183. Paul, you’re slipping. It took you 12 hours to respond.

     LikeLike

184. Paul, you wear your love for lady logic like a thorny crown. Try some common sense instead. Or don’t you understand that it’s possible to “win an argument” and still be wrong (or “lose an argument” and still be right)? What is denied is the sort of narcissism that baptizes ideology. I think you agree with that effort, but then you turn around and get all fillosophical about it and chase your own tail, then blame everyone else for your dizziness.

     LikeLike

185. Dear Zrim, I’m sorry I offended you.:

     This has nothing all to do with being ashamed or wanting to loved by pagans. Indeed, this is a remarkably uncharitable way to interpret what really is an honest attempt to be obedient and proper about things and only goes to show how poorly you misunderstand what is being said, if I may be so bold.

     I was not for an instant suggesting that you are being ashamed; certainly not that I am more bold than you.

     I was only pointing out the more obvious and unarguable point that your desired outcomes happen to coincide with those of AUSCS. It was a “friendly fire” point, not a disparagement of your courage.

     I trust that you, true to your SOTC convictions, are bold when necessary.

     Jeff, the point has been made repeatedly here that believers necessarily take their faith with them into the public square (recall the tipping analogy where the biblical virtues of generosity and prudence are referenced), that we are not hermetically sealed off from our faith in our public doings, etc.

     Yes, you are correct that the point has been made. Repeatedly even.

     The problem is, the point has also been undermined by the following:

     (1) Anytime an actual Christian suggests bringing their faith into the public square, he is criticized and mocked *because he is bringing faith into the common realm.*

     It’s not much of a concession when the hubby says, “Yes, dear, you may go shopping; of course you have to buy things”, but then complains when any actual shopping occurs because it is shopping.

     (2) The details of what you call “how”, what constitutes “proper” and “improper” bringing of faith into the public square have been left utterly unspecified, by design.

     Again with the husband: “Yes dear, you may go shopping. But don’t buy the things I don’t like. And no, I won’t tell you what those things are.”

     (3) The tool of choice in your criticisms of others is the “separation of cult and culture.” That phrase, as such, is neither obviously biblical nor obviously Confessional. I continue to be puzzled why it has such prominence in your thought. I view it with a suspicion similar to that for “the separation of the Church and Israel” or “the difference between living faith and dead orthodoxy.” All three are suspect dichotomies.

     —

     Now, you’ve alluded to another tool that we agree to: the distinction between the Word of God and the word of man. You said,

     Zrim: There is a place for binding the conscience, but it is only in places where God has spoken and not where he is silent.

     That’s exactly right! If we could hear more of that, and less of the troubling “cult and culture” distinction, I would be less concerned about SOTC.

     So for example: you may recall that I argued in favor of the permissibilty of public schooling way back in ’08 in the exchanges with Elder Hoss. Why? Because the forbidding of public schooling is neither explicit teaching nor good-and-necessary consequence from Scripture. Done. Why bring in questions of cult and culture? Hoss’s point was that the public school *is* a matter of cult — and then the argument just got messy.

     JRC

     LikeLike

186. Zrim, why the insults and name calling? I thought that was just my thing. Oh yeah, when YOU do it, it’s not name calling. Gottcha.

     I don’t know what is denied because NO OEN HAS TOLD ME DESPITE HOW MANY TIMES I’VE ASKED Y’ALL TO DEFINE YOUR TERMS.

     Not only that, that CAN’T be “what’s denied,” Zrim. Try some common sense. Since *I* didn’t baptize ideology, and since Hart took issue with my claims about worldview, and James Anderson’s claims about biblical epistemology (and since Anderson doesn’t “baptize ideology”), then YOU CAN’T BE RIGHT IN YOUR INTERPRETATION.

     Try again.

     LikeLike

187. Darryl, Zrim said all men have worldviews. So that must mean that you have one even if you deny it. Do you like apples? How ’bout dem apples?

     LikeLike

188. I made specific claims which backed up my position. Zrim, again, wearing his hatred for logic like a thorny crown, ignores all of my points and goes on to pontificate and bloviate without bothering to show that what he says has anything to do with my comments.

     Again, in case inability to read and comprehend is entailed by Zrimmian interpretations of common sense:

     Hart denied worldview, Zrim affirmed it.

     Hart denied Christian views of history, science, epistemology, etc — my quotes supported it.

     What is Zrim’s resolution? Lemme guess: “It’s a paradox you logic loving, glory story, gospel denying, law and gospel mixing heretic.”

     Yeah, the rhetoric’s wearing thin. Show me don’t tell me, for once, will ya.

     LikeLike

189. Here’s the cash value of Steve anti-rational Zrimec’s latest (just some minor changes):

     Zrim, you wear your hatred for lady logic like a thorny crown. Try some common sense instead. Or don’t you understand that it’s possible to “win an argument”l be right (or “lose an argument” and be wrong)? What is denied is the sort of narcissism that baptizes your assertions just because you made them. I think you agree with that effort, but then you turn around and get all anti-fillosophical about it and chase your own paradoxical tail, then blame everyone else for your dizziness.

     Stupid, huh?

     LikeLike

190. After hundreds of comments, I finally got my concession. There’s nothing wrong with worldviewism *per se*, or with a Christian worldview *per se*, the problem is with, whatever this means, a “narcissism that baptizes ideology.” Now, that doesn’t seem conceptually identical to “worldview,” but the point is there. There’s no argument against James’ post on biblical epistemology, or any of the defenses I made of worldviewism, nor to Van Til’s conception.

     So my argument was correct.

     How’s that tall cold glass of milk taste, Darryl?

     LikeLike

191. Yo, DGH, Zrim said everyone has a worldview. So does that mean you have one even though you deny it?

     Yo, Zrim, thanks for finally conceeding the point (even if Darryl didn’t want to). You claim the objection here is to “the sort of narcissism that baptizes ideology,” and since the worldviewism of the sort I defended here, or James Anderson defended in his post, or that Van Til defended, then what you claim is the “objection” is fully consistent with having a Christian view on history, science, epistemology, metaphysics, law, etc.

     If you could have just conceeded this at the beginning, then we wouldn’t have had all these posts. better late than never, I suppose (oh yeah, love the name calling in your post, bro).

     LikeLike

192. Odd, my September 8, 2010 at 8:20 pm is “awaiting moderation”, yet in that post I merely copied Zrim’s September 8, 2010 at 6:04 pm and changed a couple words in it. What principled and nonarbitrary basis could there be for putting mine in moderation and leaving his out?

     LikeLike

193. Paul, it might have something to do with the definition of Umpire, or its blog equivalent, Moderator. Plus, you’re not saying anything new and it certainly isn’t funny. And being a Phil Hendrie fan, I think I know humor, and you’re no Ricky Gervais.

     LikeLike

194. Jeff,

     First, thanks for what appears to be an apology, but my point about shame and boldness really had less to do with any personal offense and more to do with pointing out a potential significant misunderstanding.

     Second, if I understand, your complaint seems to be that the cult/culture distinction is overdone and that SOTC would go down better if that distinction wasn’t being made. I’m sorry, but that distinction just seems to me to be quite inherent to the doctrine of the SOTC. It’s like saying, “Sola fide is great, but you have to lay off the rigid law/gospel distinction.” You don’t get to sola fide without that rigid distinction; likewise you don’t get to the SOTC without the rigid cult/culture distinction. This is why, I think, there is some cross-pollination between soteriological and ecclesiological concerns, why I think it is arguable that to confuse cult and culture to whatever degree is the ecclesiological version of the soteriological confusion of law and gospel to whatever degree.

     So for example: you may recall that I argued in favor of the permissibilty of public schooling way back in ’08 in the exchanges with Elder Hoss. Why? Because the forbidding of public schooling is neither explicit teaching nor good-and-necessary consequence from Scripture. Done. Why bring in questions of cult and culture? Hoss’s point was that the public school *is* a matter of cult — and then the argument just got messy.

     Your argument against Hoss was one that could be made, and obviously one for which I have nothing but sympathy. But you seem to be overlooking that Hoss’s point about education (curriculum, not catechesis, just to be clear here) being a matter of cult is precisely one that grows out of a cult/culture confusion and must be addressed by making a cult/culture distinction. You can’t simply wave it away as a way to muddy the waters. So my point in all this is that sola scriptura and cult/culture distinction are necessarily bound up with each other.

     LikeLike

195. Darryl, you didn’t think it was funny when you said you didn’t have a worldview and Zrim said you did? You didn’t think it was funny when I quoted paradigmatic 2Kers sounding like your worldview cairactures? And, what up in the Bayly blog? I said somehting new there. Is that I’m not funny, or is it that you don’t like the kid pointing out when you’re wearing no clothes? Come on, clotheless emperor Hart (with jst a bow tie on) is a funny image.

     LikeLike

196. Paul, I’ve sometimes found that too many hyperlinks trigger an automatic hold on a post.

     LikeLike

197. Jeff, I haven’t included any hyperlinks. But here’s something new to find: too many arguments puts a hold on a post, apparently.

     LikeLike

198. Zrim: Second, if I understand, your complaint seems to be that the cult/culture distinction is overdone and that SOTC would go down better if that distinction wasn’t being made. I’m sorry, but that distinction just seems to me to be quite inherent to the doctrine of the SOTC. It’s like saying, “Sola fide is great, but you have to lay off the rigid law/gospel distinction.” You don’t get to sola fide without that rigid distinction; likewise you don’t get to the SOTC without the rigid cult/culture distinction.

     I think there is another way to do it.

     The writers of the Confession drew the line, not at two separate kingdoms — which was certainly an idea available to them, had they wished to avail themselves of it — but at different activities in life.

     In the activities of believing and worshiping, our consciences are free from commands extraneous to the word.

     In all other activities, our consciences are free from commands contrary to the word.

     Note that this freedom cuts across both “kingdoms.”

     The minor problem with the rigid line between cult and culture is that the rigidity cannot be maintained without crossed fingers.

     Take a Geneva-psalter-only church. The tunes it sings are solidly located in a particular culture (namely, 16th c. European vocal music). Culture — in the middle of our cult! — forsooth!

     And that’s but one example; as you can imagine, I could pile up a pretty raft of examples where cult crosses over into culture or culture crosses over into cult.

     But you’ve implicitly given the game up when you acknowledge that Christians act like Christians whether involved in cult or culture. If Scripture is truly only for cultic activities, then Christians ought to jettison it outside of cultic activities — and yet we agree that they do not.

     The major problem with the rigid line between cult and culture is that it isn’t either explicit teaching nor yet good-and-necessary inference from Scripture. “Whence the rigid line?”, one asks. “Well, Cain built a city and Romans 13, so there”, comes the reply. That’s just not enough.

     It ought to be troubling that the supposed rigid line between cult and culture was (a) not in any of the original Reformed confessions; (b) denied by the very practices of the writers of said confessions; and (c) nor yet found in the revisions of those confessions.

     Don’t get me wrong: I can see some differences between cult and culture. I just don’t think those differences are sufficiently Scripturally grounded to constitute genuine doctrine. Better, by far, to distinguish between “faith and worship” and “everything else.” That’s close to the notion of cult and culture, but it focuses on actions instead of kingdoms.

     JRC

     LikeLike

199. Jeff, if the confessions don’t make a distinction between cult and culture, why don’t they say anything about math, economics, grammar, or education curriculum? They don’t. And that is where the rigid line exists, not in the fluid one you draw (a la Frame) from the fact that we use language in both. The Bible says we speak. Got it. It doesn’t reveal Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew grammar.

     LikeLike

200. DGH, you’re making several complicated points, including (if I’m following?) that “music” is “language.” Quite the thought-provoking topic.

     Your main point, though, seems to be that the very structure of the confession delineates the rigid line between cult and culture. Since, you seem to say, the confession speaks to cult and not to culture, it demonstrates the proper relationship of the church to those two spheres.

     That’s a pretty tenuous stretch, though. We just as easily say that the very structure of the confession delineates the rigid line between “good and necessary consequence” and “other.” What the Scripture demands, it puts forth; what the Scripture is silent on, it refuses to speculate.

     So interestingly, the confession *does* say something about, of all things, civil government! Chapter 23, whether in the original or the 1789, blows right past the rigid cult and culture line, and speaks directly, as the church, to the definition of the job of the civil magistrate.

     So I don’t think your argument-qua-question holds up. The reason the confession doesn’t say anything about math in specific is that Scripture does not say anything about math in specific, NOT because math is “culture” instead of “cult.” In areas of culture — civil government, marriage — where the Scripture does speak, the confession isn’t shy.

     LikeLike

201. Jeff:

     Earlier you said, “Better, by far, to distinguish between “faith and worship” and “everything else.” That’s close to the notion of cult and culture, but it focuses on actions instead of kingdoms.”

     The WCF doesn’t merely focus on actions. It articulates who rules over these two realms of activity. The church has jurisdiction over “faith and worship.” The civil magistrate has jurisdiction over “everything else.” Here’s the evidence. WCF 31.2: “It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God and government of his church.” Not only does the church have jurisdiction over faith and worship. Its jurisdiction is exclusive–the civil magistrate may not intrude upon it. WCF 23.3: “Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and Sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith.” Matters of faith and worship are to be governed by the church.

     Everything else is governed by the civil magistrate and, as mentioned earlier, believers ought to follow the civil magistrate’s edicts so long as they are not “contrary” to scripture. In the same way that the civil magistrate is not supposed to intrude upon churchly affairs, the church is not to intrude upon civil affairs. WCF 31.4: “Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs…[except in extraordinary circumstances].”

     Two realms. Two rulers. Two kingdoms.

     LikeLike

202. Jeff, your point is fair but you don’t seem to want to live by it. Yes, the Bible does say something about marriage and politics, hardly a lot the way that either Dr. Laura or Aristotle do. I’d also say that the Bible speaks to these matters in cultic ways — what believers are supposed to do, not 50 ways to have a happy home.

     But you seem to want to run from these two instances to saying that the entire distinction is too rigid and doesn’t work. Which means you want to include (again like Frame) language as something that exists in both cult and culture. And from there I presume we could say that because humans are also in both spheres, overlap is everywhere.

     First, I don’t think you acknowledge the importance of the distinction and its usefulness for letting the church be the church. Second, I don’t think you acknowledge that somethings truly are religious and cultic and are not cultural as in some are holy and others are common. And third, I don’t think you acknowledge the poor reasoning and analysis that ensues from blurring the two.

     And to add to RL’s point, the confession is also clear about the distinction when it comes to Sabbath observance. Cultural things are fine on every day except Sunday. At that point, they become profane. If you blur cult and culture, you have no Sabbath theology. Funny how sabbatarianism seems to decline in relation to transformationalism’s advance.

     LikeLike

203. Jeff, I appreciate your points, but simply stated, the complexities you point out are precisely the reason a certain measure of rigidity is needed. Because believers (unlike unbelievers) have a foot in both kingdoms it doesn’t seem to help things by letting the lines blur.

     To keep the comparison going, does it really help anything to let the categories of law and gospel blur? If we accept that we are by nature hard wired for law, and if we accept that law is deadly to us post-Adam, it seems to me that we’d want a rigid distinction made to keep us from toxic inclinations.

     Better, by far, to distinguish between “faith and worship” and “everything else.” That’s close to the notion of cult and culture, but it focuses on actions instead of kingdoms.</i.

     Again, I don't see how we distinguish between actions if we don't distinguish between kingdoms. It seems like saying we should determine what is adultery without talking about marriage.

     LikeLike

204. The original post was about a Catholic being named President of an Evangelical College and the seeming indifference of the College to the doctrinal differences between the two. This seems to be reconciled (in the minds of the powers that be at the College) in the pursuit of a Christian world and life view while diminishing the importance of doctrine to the more important task of bringing Christian convictions to the cultural activities of believers. The 2K confessionalist believes that cultural matters will take care of themselves and we do not have to wear our Christian convictions on our sleeves when we are assuming our vocational duties in the culture. It is better, according to the confessionalists, to utilize natural law thinking in the public square and they advocate stopping the Christian and worldview nonsense. This is polarizing in the culture and really accomplishes no good. Non-Christians, who are utilizing their reason properly, can come to the same conclusions about justice when dealing with problems in the culture.

     Confessionalists have an aversion to Philosophical Theology because of the problems inherent in trying to integrate theology with a certain philosophical viewpoint (there is historical precedence for this). One has to bring world and life view thinking into the debates covered in this field. However, it seems to me, that world and life view presuppositions are inherent in confessionalism (notably from the reformational heritage of both Calvinists and Lutherans) and they bring this into their thinking about doctrine and what is important to include in confessional statements.

     Did not Scottish Common Sense Realism try to deal with this problem of philosophical speculation in Theology? Is there not a place for Philosophical Theology in Academia?

     LikeLike

205. RL: It’s a powerful argument, but I still disagree. The problem is that your evidence isn’t dispositive, and you gloss over evidence to the contrary, specifically the section in WLC on the decalogue and also WCoF 1.6. In the end, the line drawn between church and state does not divide up the same way as the line drawn between “faith and worship” and “other.”

     Let’s take the 1789 confession as baseline, since we agree (I think) that the earlier Reformed confessions had none of the current 2k thought in mind.

     You state, rightly, that the church is given exclusive jurisdiction in matters of faith and worship.

     You then assume that the state is given exclusive jurisdiction in all other matters.

     But let’s take the case of a church member who is stealing. Who has jurisdiction? The state and the church *both* do, in different ways. The church has the powers of both judicial declaration and also of discipline. Thus, WLC 98ff, which binds all men to the obedience of the decalogue, and Christians in particular in their activities *both* sacred and secular. The jurisdiction of the church extends into the secular by virtue of her power to declare that one must, e.g., respect ones superiors in the commonwealth (WLC 124) or refrain from immoderate use of meat and drink (WLC 136).

     Or, let’s take the organization of ministry. That is neither a matter of “faith”, nor yet of “worship” — it falls in fact under WCoF 1.6 — and yet it is clearly within the jurisdiction of the church and not the state. Ditto deaconal ministries.

     The point is, the church in its normal functioning operates more broadly than in the two narrow areas of “faith” and “worship.”

     And outside of those two narrow areas, the regulative principle does not hold. In fact, it is necessary for the “light of nature” — common grace reasoning — to be employed.

     What’s the conclusion? That the line between “faith” and “worship” on the one hand, and common-grace activity on the other, is NOT equivalent to the jurisdictional line between the church and the state.

     I agree with you that there is a jurisdictional line between the church and state; I just don’t agree that such line can be sloppily renamed as “cult v. culture.”

     LikeLike

206. DGH: But you seem to want to run from these two instances to saying that the entire distinction is too rigid and doesn’t work. Which means you want to include (again like Frame) language as something that exists in both cult and culture. And from there I presume we could say that because humans are also in both spheres, overlap is everywhere.

     Here’s my difference with Frame: he is content to leave the pieces on the cutting-room floor and let the reader pick them up and assemble them for himself. I respect that approach in some ways (mainly because it models allowing the reader freedom of conscience!), but I also think it may get him into trouble in some ways.

     By contrast, I would *not* wish to say that overlap is everywhere or that there are no lines. Rather, by trying to find lines that always hold, instead of lines that are “rigid” but admit of exceptions, I’m trying to pick up the pieces and assemble them in a tighter fashion. That’s part of being a math guy.

     I think the line between “faith and worship” and “other” is probably a good one, and it admits of much less exception than “cult” and “culture.”

     Even your followup shows the kind of problematic exception-making I mean:

     DGH: And to add to RL’s point, the confession is also clear about the distinction when it comes to Sabbath observance. Cultural things are fine on every day except Sunday. At that point, they become profane.

     So … you don’t eat on Sunday? Or talk on the telephone? Or sit, stand, or lie down? Those are all common activities, not cultic, right?

     Ah, but they are *exceptions*. The line between cult and culture is rigid — except when it isn’t. You see the problem — you have to gloss over the exceptions when you say that cult and culture are separate.

     To your numbered points:

     (1) I don’t think you acknowledge the importance of the distinction [between cult and culture] and its usefulness for letting the church be the church.

     I can see using a cult/culture distinction as a matter of wisdom. I just don’t think it’s a matter of rigid doctrine.

     The cult/culture distinction is useful, broadly speaking; not useful in some specific cases; and not binding in any event.

     Back at you: I don’t think you acknowledge that your articles hold people to the cult/culture standard as if it were settled Scriptural doctrine.

     (2) I don’t think you acknowledge that somethings truly are religious and cultic and are not cultural as in some are holy and others are common.

     I would say that activities cannot be separated from the motives that drive them. Fasting might be cultic; it might be medical. Obedience to the moral law might be an act of worship (Rom 12.1-2), or it might be an act of idolatry, or it might be simply fitting in to one’s culture.

     (3) I don’t think you acknowledge the poor reasoning and analysis that ensues from blurring the two.

     You’re somewhat right. I see poor reasoning and analysis going on in certain quarters (not referring to present company; names withheld), but most of that I chalk up to failing to distinguish between Word of God and word of man, or what Zrim calls narcissism.

     I don’t see blurring cult and culture as the necessary root of all evil. The Genevan psalter blended cult and culture just fine.

     LikeLike

207. Zrim: To keep the comparison going, does it really help anything to let the categories of law and gospel blur? If we accept that we are by nature hard wired for law, and if we accept that law is deadly to us post-Adam, it seems to me that we’d want a rigid distinction made to keep us from toxic inclinations.

     I think that comparison is excellent for illustrating my point. Now that you’ve set up the rigid distinction between law and gospel, you are now led into saying “law is deadly to us post-Adam.” The paradigm has taken over — but the data present a more complicated picture. Which is why the Reformed folk have three uses of the law and not merely one.

     And in that third use of the law, the law is *not* deadly to us, but “of great use”, as the Confession says.

     Is the law/gospel distinction a useful one? Certainly. Is it the final word on the law? No.

     [I’m trying to be careful here — I do not for an instant believe that our justification depends upon our following of the law. There *is* a rigid law/gospel distinction in the matter of justification.]

     Likewise, I think “cult/culture” has the potential to become a paradigm that overwhelms the data. Can it be useful to distinguish cult and culture? Yes. I would say that in the last two years, thanks to you guys, I have become more sensitive to ways in which the church and state intrude on each other’s jurisdictions. But I’ve also seen the cult/culture distinction be used as if it were the final word, and it’s just not.

     LikeLike

208. Jeff, stealing doesn’t prove your point. The church and the state have rules on each. The details of those rules would be vastly different. But the church’s jurisdiction only extends to Christian theifs. And it is not at all clear that if the church convicts a treasurer for stealing funds from offerings that the church would turn the stealer over to the state.

     What is the organization of ministry? If it’s polity, there is not an overlap. Church government is not an preferential matter. Jure divino Presbyteriianism requires presbyterian polity.

     As for my Sunday practices, eating is an act of necessity. And I’ve often thought that using a phone or a light on Sunday employs someone else and should be avoided unless an emergency. Whether I am as principled about that as I should be is another matter.

     But your examples do not remove the rigidity of the differences between cult and culture. And to say that it depends on the heart is just another example of pietism. I do agree with the importance of motivation. But what a 2k confessionalist is also trying to assert is the importance of external actions and matters. Baptism really is different from a bath and it’s not just the motivation. And juggling really is profane in the Lord’s Day service.

     LikeLike

209. John, lots of Reformed worldviewers are very critical of older Reformed theologians’ appropriation of Scottish Common Sense realism.

     I think there is a place for philosophical theology. But it is a specialized discipline and hardly the pocket calculator that is being recommended in the form of a Christian world and life view for every average believer.

     LikeLike

210. It is my understanding that Scottish Common Sense Realism tried to establish reasons for why we can trust our ability to understand the objective truths found in God’s Word and the material world that God made. The Empiricists were arguing against our ability to do this and were limiting “truth” to our subjective interpretations. Objective truth is an illusion to empiricists. Thomas Reid, in his dialog with David Hume, saw this and knew it would undermine the Christian faith if thought through to its logical conclusions. He then tried to “prove” how common sense establishes certain axioms and principles related to probable truths and certain truths. By these “truths” we can trust the common sense notion that God would not play tricks on His Creation and creatures but gives us the ability to discern and know Him (objective truth). These are gifts given to all creatures analogically made in His Image. To speculate otherwise is to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. It is something our fallen nature is driven to do.

     I do realize that “Reformed worldviewers are very critical of older Reformed theologians appropriation of SCSR.” And that was the point I was trying to make. Perhaps they were wrong in their assessment of SCSR. I do not know the reasons why they were critical of it but that is why there is a place for Philosophical Theology. These things have to be argued about in institutions of higher learning in order to defend the faith against fallen philosophical speculation which seeks to suppress the truth and undermine our trust in our ability to discern and know it.

     LikeLike

211. Dr. Hart, I confess myself lost by your reply. Sorry to be dense.

     I was arguing that the church claims jurisdiction over actions that are not strictly cultic. I cited stealing as an example of an action that has to do with the common (namely, property rights), about which the church has regulations.

     You replied that yes, the church has regulations about stealing, but no, that doesn’t prove my point.

     ??? You seem to have agreed with my point while denying that I proved it.

     —

     Part of your response is that the church only has jurisdiction over the stealing of its members. But that’s a different issue: who is under the jurisdiction of the church, rather than which actions are regulated. The original claim was that the church regulates faith and worship only; this turns out to be false.

     —

     DGH: What is the organization of ministry? If it’s polity, there is not an overlap. Church government is not an preferential matter. Jure divino Presbyteriianism requires presbyterian polity.

     Fine, but not on point. WCoF 1.9 means something when it says

     Nevertheless, we acknowledge … that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.

     Whatever those “circumstances” may be, the point is that common-grace reasoning is permitted in them. The supposedly rigid wall of cult and culture is, once again, admitting exceptions.

     —

     I hope I haven’t inadvertently pushed you into feeling guilty about your Sabbath-keeping. There’s no end to it.

     LikeLike

212. And in that third use of the law, the law is *not* deadly to us, but “of great use”, as the Confession says. Is the law/gospel distinction a useful one? Certainly. Is it the final word on the law? No…Likewise, I think “cult/culture” has the potential to become a paradigm that overwhelms the data. Can it be useful to distinguish cult and culture? Yes. I would say that in the last two years, thanks to you guys, I have become more sensitive to ways in which the church and state intrude on each other’s jurisdictions. But I’ve also seen the cult/culture distinction be used as if it were the final word, and it’s just not.

     Jeff, my point about law being deadly is a second use point and, in good Reformed form, assumes a conventional third use. This is in no way whatsoever to dispense wholesale with the third use. So I’m not sure your critique really sticks. Similar critiques are made against Lutherans when they make strict law/gospel distinctions, but it’s fairly handily refuted that Lutherans have no third use understanding (see Fesko in the CPJ, 2007).

     But, like Protestantism in general does with law/gospel, 2k specifically is arguing that cult/culture doesn’t overwhelm the data, rather it arises naturally from Scripture.

     LikeLike

213. Jeff, the point would be that the church regulates her members whatever the state does. And stealing is one of those matters that the church regulates. If the state did not regulate it, the church still would. I don’t see how this undermines the cult/culture distinction. It’s perfectly consistent with it.

     And your citation of WCF 1.6 also doesn’t have anything to do with the distinction. Every single person I know who holds the distinction also affirms that when to meet for church or GA is not governed by Scripture (Frame doesn’t hold this), but by the light of nature. What you are confusing, it seems is the source of revelation for the cult. The church draws from both general and special. The culture only from general.

     LikeLike

214. It seems to me that Luther comes very close in asserting a third use of the law in his summary of the Ten Commandments in his Larger Catechism. I do not think Lutherans and the Calvinist traditions are as far off from each other as some would make you think.

     LikeLike

215. John, ding ding ding ding.

     LikeLike

216. John, as I read the Reformed critiques of Scottish Common Sense, it has a lot to do first with the difference between realism and idealism (hello, Kant and Hegel again). It also has to do with a diminished respect for natural law. Which is to say that Kuyper and Dooyeweerd offered critiques of NL or its philosophical basis that led contemporary worldviewers to regard the Enlightenment as wicked and Warfield as naive. I recommend VanDrunen’s book on NL and 2k to gain a perspective on this development.

     LikeLike

217. Zrim: Jeff, my point about law being deadly is a second use point and, in good Reformed form, assumes a conventional third use. This is in no way whatsoever to dispense wholesale with the third use. So I’m not sure your critique really sticks.

     The critique wasn’t that you don’t believe in the 3rd use, but that your slogan (“law is deadly to man”) is in conflict with what you actually believe.

     Ah, you say, it’s a slogan. We should expect oversimplification from slogans. And I say, No, our slogans ought to say exactly what we mean. If you mean that the law in its first use is deadly to man, but in its third use is of great use to man, a light to his eyes and so on, then it’s a profound oversimplification to say “The law is deadly to man.”

     It’s not fair, or wise, to use loose language and expect the rest of us to catch on. Which is not to say that I’m always sufficiently precise; just that, when I’m not, I usually have you two to point it out to me. 🙂

     The same is true here in the “cult/culture distinction.” You have a rigid line; when exceptions are raised, you claim that the exceptions prove the rule.

     To my mind, the exceptions prove that the rule is oversimplified.

     LikeLike

218. DGH: We started by saying that the cult/culture distinction means that

     The church has exclusive jurisdiction over faith and worship
     The magistrate has exclusive jurisdiction over everything else.

     I pointed out that the cult/culture distinction as defined is false. The church exerts jurisdiction over stealing (by its members) — and of course, over civil government in WCoF 23, over marriage, heck, over how much you eat (WLC 136).

     Now I’m told that, yes, the church has jurisdiction over stealing (by it members), but that doesn’t prove my point.

     What exactly qualifies as “proving a point” around here??!! Seems like I’ve met the usual logical requirements…

     Or do you believe that stealing is a matter of “faith” or “worship”?

     Baffled,
     Jeff

     LikeLike

219. Jeff, who ever said the magistrate has jurisdiction over everything else? I’ve never once countenanced that. Which magistrate — local, state, federal, republican, monarchical, democratic. What about sphere sovereignty? What about families? If you read posts here you will see efforts to juggle (the place where it should go on) these various authorities. And you’ll see acknowledgment that the spheres overlap in their concerns. Parents, church officers, and states all have an interest in the conduct of children. For you this proves that the line between cult and culture is invalid. But you have created a straw man.

     Is it not fair to say that the church alone has jurisdiction over cultic activities? If the answer is yes, then you are a long way toward 2k. It is not rigid because believers live the rest of the week with competing sets of allegiances and duties. What sorts out some of that is conscience and Christian liberty.

     This is hardly, the church has jurisdiction over worship, the magistrate has everything else. I NEVER started this.

     As for a rigid line, is there one between day and night? What about 6:30 pm in early Oct.? Why do you look at this mechanically and not organically?

     LikeLike

220. Well, hm. I was apparently mistaken in my read of this:

     RL: The WCF doesn’t merely focus on actions. It articulates who rules over these two realms of activity. The church has jurisdiction over “faith and worship.” The civil magistrate has jurisdiction over “everything else.” Here’s the evidence….

     DGH: And to add to RL’s point, the confession is also clear about the distinction when it comes to Sabbath observance…

     I mistakenly understood you as countenancing RL’s point, which appeared to be as I stated.

     So allow me to retrench: how precisely would you define the cult/culture distinction?

     —

     About the mechanical and organic: I actually like organic just fine. Keep in mind that I’m arguing *against* rigid walls between cult and culture.

     LikeLike

221. As a followup to your question: I would say that there is an extended boundary between night and day. That boundary is sharper in the summer, blurrier in the winter, sharpest at the equator, blurriest at the poles.

     So there’s clearly night — except in midsummer inside the polar circles — and clearly day — except in midwinter at same.

     It is what it is, and arguing for a rigid boundary between the two is artificial. The best shot at that is “sunrise” and “sunset”, which are sharply defined (scientifically).

     There’s a reason that we have words like “twilight” and “dawn.”

     But notice also that rejecting a rigid boundary between night and day is not the same thing as denying the very existence of night and day. “Bald” has a clear meaning, even if the boundary between “bald” and “not bald” is fuzzy.

     —

     DGH: Is it not fair to say that the church alone has jurisdiction over cultic activities? If the answer is yes, then you are a long way toward 2k. It is not rigid because believers live the rest of the week with competing sets of allegiances and duties. What sorts out some of that is conscience and Christian liberty.

     I can live with this. Yes and amen to the first. A lack of rigidity (sorry, Zrim) in the rest. And conscience and Christian liberty governing the whole.

     To that extent, call me a 2k-er.

     Notice that this comes very close to what I argued for above:

     In the activities of believing and worshiping, our consciences are free from commands extraneous to the word.

     In all other activities, our consciences are free from commands contrary to the word.

     Note that this freedom cuts across both “kingdoms.”

     LikeLike

222. Here is an article about Dinesh D’Souza that some may be interested in:

     http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/what_dsouza_doesnt_get_quite_r.html

     LikeLike

223. A Catholic huh? D’Souza himself has said his history is Catholic, but that he now holds to an evangelical theology that is reformational and protestant. He attends a Calvary Chapel and says he agrees with the theology outlined in CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity. Of course that’s not good enough for you Calvinists either. But is a far cry from Catholicism. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/augustweb-only/44-21.0.html

     LikeLike

224. Kate K.,

     For the record, D’Souza has written that he is “comforatable” with Protestant theology and “comfortable” with evangelicalism, not that he “holds” to it. He also has pointedly stated that he does not renounce his Roman Catholicism. The theology outlined in Mere Christianity could be affirmed by a Roman Catholic.

     I hold respect for D’Souza as an apologist and a political analyst. But I think his theological position are ambiguous at best. I heard the audio of a recent debate in which he participated with with Christopher Hitchens and Dennis Prager, and notably, he declined to affirm sola fide or sola gratia. His equivocal answer appeared to affirm cooperation with grace as a means of justification. Very Catholic, not very Protestant. All the Protestants in the audience were a bit, well, unsatisifed with his answers.

     One can sympathize with his position, a Catholic married to an evangelical. But I have not heard from him anything resembling an affirmation of belief in justification by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone. I hear mushy answers that sound more RC than Protestant.

     LikeLike

225. I’ve gone ahead and bookmarked https://oldlife.org/2010/08/26/putting-the-tr-in-trueman/ at Digg.com and my site too – so my friends can see it too. I simply used Old Life Theological Society » Blog Archive » Putting the TR in Trueman as the entry title in my Digg.com bookmark, as I figured if it is good enough for you to title your blog post that, then you probably would like to see it bookmarked the same way.

     LikeLike

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.