The indefatigable slayer of 2k dragons, Nelson Kloosterman, has started a review series of David VanDrunen’s recent book on natural law and the two kingdoms. In his opening essay – will this one grow to twenty-one installments like his series on Klineanism and theonomy – he identifies the issue that makes VanDrunen’s position so alarming and worthy of extended critique:
. . . the disagreement—let this be clear from the outset—has never been about the existence of natural law or of two modes of divine rule in the world. In our current context, and in this ongoing discussion, that has never been the disagreement. The disagreement has involved, and continues to involve, the authority of Scripture, the authority of Jesus Christ, and the responsibility of Christians in the world. How is the Bible relevant to Christian living in today’s world? How is the lordship of Jesus Christ relevant to Christian living in today’s world? These have been, and remain, the questions that define the disagreement. Contemporary advocates of a certain construal of natural law and two kingdoms are unable to explain how either the Bible or the lordship of Jesus Christ are normative for Christians in their cultural life in today’s world. By contrast, contemporary advocates of Reformed worldview Christianity insist that the principles of God’s inscripturated revelation and of the lordship of King Jesus are normative for Christians in their cultural life in today’s world.
This is a helpful statement of what it is that troubles Kloosterman. But he has left out an important matter for Reformed Protestants, namely, what do our churches confess? Here the answer is not in Kloosterman’s favor since the Reformed Confessions say nothing about a Christian worldview as an article of the Christian faith. Nor has the notion of worldview been a consideration for determining churches of like faith and practice.
That puts Kloosterman in the awkward position of implicitly binding the conscience of VanDrunen and all those who don’t accept Dr. K’s version of Christian worldviewism. By making worldview the basis for his approval of other believers and their ideas, Kloosterman is establishing his own opinion and interpretation of the Bible as the criterion for unity in the faith. But let it be clear that he has no confessional basis for making a Christian worldview a requirement of authentic and faithful Christianity.
Old Life 
He makes “worldviewism” as an article of the Christian faith? Get serious, Darryl. What part of “the principles of God’s inscripturated revelation and the lordship of King Jesus are normative for Christians in their cultural life in today’s world” don’t you understand?
LikeLike
Perhaps the connection to confessionalism is that the Bible is either the sufficient basis of “faith and life” or “faith and practice” (as the vow for elder in the OPC) puts it.
LikeLike
Mark, I know you’re a fan of Art. 36. What part of it do you understand to use the words “culture” or “cultural engagement?”
LikeLike
I wouldn’t presume to speak on Mark’s behalf, but it’s clear that your focus on “culture” and “cultural engagement” is a straw man, Dr. Hart. After all, Dr. Kloosterman is quite clear that cultural engagement is not the core issue, but merely the realm in which the core issue is revealed. The issue here is one of Scriptural authority. Has God truly given His Word to guide us in _all_ of life — or only within the confines of the church? Will we submit to God’s will in _all_ of life (as we pray in the Lord’s prayer, cf. Lord’s Day 49), or will we submit to the conspiracy that God’s Word is irrelevant for the “civil” realm (contra what we confess in Lord’s Day 48), and that the natural light is sufficient in things civil (contra Canons of Dort 3/4,4)? THAT is the issue. But that’s not as easy to knock down as an argument constructed of straw.
LikeLike
Pastor Barnes, Dr. Hart can speak for himself also, but I can’t help but observe that you and Dr. Kloosterman adroitly execute an old lawyer’s rhetorical trick. In law, we say that he who defines the issue determines the answer. With all respect, Dr. Kloosterman and your formulation of the “issue” begs the question that Dr. VanDrunen and Dr. Hart pose. That is whether the manner of Christ’s rule in the spiritual kingdom (through the Word) is normative for the manner of Christ’s rule in the civil kingdom. The method of cultural engagement is very much relevant to that issue. Your assertion that the issue is “whether we will submit to God’s will in all of life” assumes what you’re trying to prove. It’s a nice rhetorical trick, but not a serious engagement of the issue.
LikeLike
Mr. Barnes (echoing CVD), no one on this side is denying the authority of the Bible. What we are questioning is whether Kloosterman can interpret it correctly. Since the creeds don’t say the Bible speaks to culture, I’d sure like Dr. K. (or you) to do more than assert a pious wish as the norm for all people.
LikeLike
Since the creeds don’t say the Bible speaks to culture..
CVD, could we say this statement assumes what Hart is trying to prove?
LikeLike
The church is holy (I Co 3.16). The Christian himself is holy (I Co 6.19). The church is called to judge those who are holy or at least profess to be holy (I Co 5). God alone judges those who are unholy (I Co 5-6).
So, Christ’s lordship is different within the church than without. That, to me, is what 2K seeks to emphasize. Otherwise, the distinction between the holy (the church) and the common is blurred or erased. Didn’t Roman Catholicism do that?
LikeLike
Mark,
How do inscripturated norms differ in authority than creeds or articles of faith? While Kloosterman might not actually be arguing this, how would he distinguish these norms from articles?
LikeLike
Mark, Dr. Hart and Dr. VanDrunen do not assume what they’re trying to prove, but rather articulate a positive, biblcially based argument for Christ ruling two kingdoms differently. You may disagree with the argument, but it doesn’t answer that argument to assert that the Bible speaks to all of life. Life in the church or life in the civil sphere?
LikeLike
I would strike a course different from NK or DGH here.
Where Scripture speaks, it speaks; where it does not speak (either directly or by good and necessary inference), there is liberty.
What Scripture definitely says is that (1) the Christian is to submit to the magistrate; (2) that magistrates should be just in their administration of justice; and (3) that it is not the business of officers of the church to judge those outside the church.
It is then the part of both officers of the church and magistrates to execute their jobs, with wisdom, so that these norms are upheld.
And in particular, as the Confession points out, the church ought not interfere with magisterial decisions, lest they indirectly end up judging those outside the church.
So far, I sound DGH-ish.
But the difference lies in (2), that magistrates are to be just in their administration of justice. On DGH’s account, this should happen through the skillful application of natural law.
I would say, No, justice is justice, and Scripture elucidates several norms of justice; magistrates are therefore to uphold those, TO THE EXTENT that they can under current Constitutional law — that is, as a lesser magistrate.
And to that extent, I sound more NK-ish.
In other words: two jurisdictions, one unified theory of justice.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff, just asking, so I understand your argument. Is the magistrate required to administer justice by consulting biblical law? In other words, does the Bible require the magistrate to enact biblical law into positive civil law (subject to constitutinal law)? As you may know, we used to do that in the history of Anglo-American law. (The law had biblical footnotes like a confession.)
LikeLike
Mark, Dr. Hart and Dr. VanDrunen do not assume what they’re trying to prove, but rather articulate a positive, biblcially based argument for Christ ruling two kingdoms differently.
CVD, now you assume what needs to be proven. Hart asserted that the confessions say the Bible doesn’t speak to culture. Where has that been proven? Rev. Barnes cites confessional provisions arguing for the opposite proposition. Ignoring confessional provisions does not make them go away.
LikeLike
Jed, the creeds/ confessions testify as to what are norms of scripture. The churches subscribe and agree they are faithful expositions of the Word of God.
LikeLike
Mark,
I agree that if you read the Heidelberg or the Lord’s Prayer through the filter of your presupposition, then the Kingdom comes when God’s law is enacted in the Civil Code of each state, and all citizens obey from the heart and the governor administers the Sacrament and pronounces absolution. But is that the only way to read the Heidelberg?
LikeLike
CVD:
I would say: the Christian magistrate should do so, to the extent permitted under the Constitution.
The non-Christian magistrate should become a Christian. 🙂
I confess, there are two uncomfortable points about my view:
(1) If there were no Constitution, would it be better to have one like the US’s? OR would it be better to have a more explicitly Christian constitution? Which leads to
(2) What does it mean for a Christian magistrate to love his non-Christian neighbor as himself? Given that the CM would not want to be religiously persecuted, ought he also to refrain from persecuting the non-Christian? Seems like Yes. But then, what of the 1st table of the Law?
(Nor does natural law help us here — the NL teaches first and foremost that there is a God who ought to be worshiped properly. So there it is.)
I view these two uncomfortable points as the simple outcome of living between the ages, Now and Not Yet. That is, there will not be a clean answer to either.
LikeLike
Mark, if you think that praying the Lord’s prayer proves your view about God’s word providing norms for culture, please read the whole Bible. Does the Bible actually talk about Christian liberty or not? I’d say Paul is pretty clear about the liberty that Christians have apart from the word. In which case it is God’s will for a Christian to eat meat offered to idols and it is against God’s will for a Christian to eat meat offered to idols.
In other words, the teaching of the Bible might be a whole lot less comprehensive than you or the Dr. K. admit.
LikeLike
Jeff, here’s the problem with your point #2 (and I don’t think you have yet to address it in all our exchanges). You do sound like Dr. K. in wanting the magistrate to consult Scripture. But you and he don’t have any room for a non-Christian magistrate then, because how is it possible for a person not regenerated to read and appropriate Scripture in a manner that is true and honoring to God? Aside from the issue of regeneration and illumination by the Holy Spirit, I don’t see how you can possibly argue that the teaching of Scripture is plain on matters of law and justice. The Bible is not a plumbing manual.
LikeLike
Mark,
I agree that if you read the Heidelberg or the Lord’s Prayer through the filter of your presupposition, then the Kingdom comes when God’s law is enacted in the Civil Code of each state, and all citizens obey from the heart and the governor administers the Sacrament and pronounces absolution. But is that the only way to read the Heidelberg?
The apriori issue under discussion is “whether” the Word of God even speaks to culture. The presupposition I have is that the confessions truthfully testify of what God’s Word says. The confessions say that the Word of God speaks normatively for all men, including the magistrate.
Your caricatured extension of my argument traveled far away down the road of “how” and in “what manner” the Bible speaks to and norms cultural institutions. It does not necessarily follow from my presupposition that I {or Kloosterman} believe the governor should “administer the sacraments and pronounce absolution.” There are other confessional provisions that address the exercise of the keys of the kingdom. I heartily and consistently subscribe to those confessional provisions as well.
The problem is that Hart rejects the apriori principle. For him, the Bible does not speak to culture. It is useless then to discuss the issue of “how” or in “what manner” if one doesn’t believe the first principle of “whether” it speaks at all.
So again I ask: where has Hart *proven* that the confessions do not say the Bible speaks to culture?
LikeLike
Mark,
Define “speaks to culture.” The Bible is aware there is a secular culture; it establishes that God ordained the civil state; it recognizes that all men/women have common callings in the culture; it tells us to work in the culture as unto the Lord,etc. In many senses it speaks to culture.
But if you want to argue that it “speaks to culture” in the sense that the Bible mandates that the Decalogue is to be civilly enforced by the coercive power of the state, I think you have to prove that. If you mean the Bible speaks to culture in the sense that it prescribes only one form of government, or tells me whether I should be a Republical or Demorcrat or Tea Partier, or what kind of legal system to organize, or whether jazz or opera are better, you have to prove that. The HC and WCF don’t use the words “culture.”
LikeLike
Jeff:
“I would say: the Christian magistrate should do so, to the extent permitted under the Constitution.â€
Well, under the U.S. Constitution magistrates are forbidden to do so at all (1st Amendment, Establishment Clause). A Christian judge or civil servant, for example, must follow the civil law and not his own biblically informed sense of justice or Christian conscience. If his Christian conscience forbids him to follow the law, he must resign. End of issue in the USA, I guess.
“The non-Christian magistrate should become a Christian.â€
Amen to that. Would that all men/women would. I think it would help give magistrate’s greater sensitivity to Christian freedom issues and greater insight into human nature — issues around the margins. (It’s no coincidence that all U.S. Supreme Court Justices who are Christian vote as a bloc and all secularists vote as a bloc.) Also the founders, while perhaps not Christian, inherited the Christian capital of a culture that had a healthy skepticism about human nature , but ideally it should not matter. They are to follow the law, not their religious ideas.
“If there were no Constitution, would it be better to have one like the US’s? OR would it be better to have a more explicitly Christian constitution?â€
I think the answer depends on whether one is 2K or something else. I’d prefer the U.S. with a separation of church and state, on biblical and pragmatic grounds. Biblically, I see the state as distinct from the church. Pragmatically, the record of explicitly “Christian†states has been a poor one. See Great Britain. See Constantine. It’s bad for the state and bad for the church. If the magistrate is going to use the sword to enforce doctrine and hunt down heresy, which Christians are you going to give the sword?
“What does it mean for a Christian magistrate to love his non-Christian neighbor as himself? Given that the CM would not want to be religiously persecuted, ought he also to refrain from persecuting the non-Christian? Seems like Yes. But then, what of the 1st table of the Law?â€
Not sure what you mean here. Wouldn’t the CM, no matter the frame of government, have to separate his civil duties from his personal duties? The judge’s personal Christian duty is to forgive and show mercy. But the judge’s civic/legal duty is to sentence the convicted criminal. They conflict, but the judge while wearing the robe must convict and sentence. It’s his role. The policeman must love his neighbor in his capacity as a Christian, but he must put handcuffs on his neighbor in his capacity as an arm of the state. So I don’t’ see it matters much whether the magistrate is Christian or pagan as long as he’s competent.
LikeLike
…in many senses it {the Bible} speaks to culture.
So we are in agreement. Now with me, you are at odds with an apriori principle of Hart’s R2kt. And yet I still await being shown where Hart has, from the confessions, proven us both wrong.
As for the “how” and “what manner” questions you ask, surely you know it is not difficult to prove the magistrate’s responsibility to enforce laws from the Decalogue. Even for the most ardent R2k proponent, the magistrate’s responsibility to uphold the second table is a no-brainer.
LikeLike
Mark,
I don’t know that we are in agreement until you tell me what you mean by “the Bible speaks to the culture.” I think I know what Dr. Hart means, but it’s not the same as you. I am confident Dr. Hart does not deny that the Bible acknowledges that the culture exists and that God ordained the state, etc. I suspect you mean “the Bible speaks to culture” in the theocratic sense: that the first table of the Decalogue should be enforced by the magistrate. I disagree.
LikeLike
Since checking for some time for just a proper read in considers to this sort of ecological niche. Attempting in Bing I now spotted this website . Looking this information So i am pleased to convey that I have a very full impression I stumbled onto whatever I was ready for. I’ll make sure to don’t forget this website and give it a look consistently .
LikeLike
CVD,
You’re the legal guy here, so I would have to defer to you. But my sense is that legislators, for example, are not so straight-cuffed by the 1st Amendment that their moral compass cannot play a role in their decisions. Right?
LikeLike
Mark, why is it that when you hear the word “culture” you think magistrate. The law and the sword are not what come to my mind first when thinking about language, manners, and meals. But maybe when you’re a lawyer, everything looks like a statute.
Be that as it may, where does the Bible treat culture as a legal or political matter? And don’t you feel a little squeamish raising politics above the spiritual realm?
LikeLike
If Jesus expected (and still expects) the magistrate (be it held by Christians or not) to enforce the first table of the Decalogue, why is there so much in the New Testament regarding Christian suffering, and even to expect such suffering from the state? The Apostles rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer at the hands of both the Jewish and Roman/Gentile authorities for the cause of Christ (see Acts 5.41 for one example). Peter’s charge to “always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is within you” is written in the context of persecution/suffering. The answer is that my hope is in Christ, not that someday the Magistrate will enforce the Decalogue and keep Christians more safe.
LikeLike
dgh: “… the Reformed Confessions say nothing about a Christian worldview as an article of the Christian faith.”
The Reformed Confessions articulate the articles of the Christian faith. The Reformed Confessions are a “view” of the “world.” The Reformed Confessions inform your worldview, Darryl.
LikeLike
Jonah,
From your comments I am going to assume you are a worldview proponent. But, while there might be some components of the confessions that interact with this-worldly issues I would argue that the confessions are more of a Christian view of Scripture than they are a “worldview”. For the sake of argument, lets say I concede that there are some issues in the confessions that touch certain issues of worldview, such as magistrate issues (though these are constantly debated), or marital issues both of which have a touch our interactions and even views of the world. You still have a Confession like the WCF that has a far greater focus on the next world, but we aren’t talking about next-worldviews; it also has a highly developed view of the church, and definitive Reformed doctrine. Even where the confession deals with how we should live in this world, it isn’t saying much about the world.
I am not one to deny the existence of worldviews, in fact there are at least hundreds of Christian worldviews. Even if the WCF has some influence on worldview, it is hard to imagine that it has total influence, or even influences the majority of a worldview, since so much of it frankly has nothing to do with this world. Some of the philosophy guys in the neighborhood can correct me if I totally whiff here, but I’d argue that as much as our faith influences our view of this world, I’d argue that culture, upbringing and other psychological inputs, and life choices such as vocation have a greater bearing on the total mass of a worldview (if we are speaking of this world) than anything in the confessions or faith related issues. That’s not even to diminish its importance or relevance of confessions, I’d even argue that the confession is far more important than a worldview. But, it’s very hard to believe that a “Reformed Christian” worldview looks the same in 2010 USA than it did in 1650 Brittan, and that has little to do with developments and changes in Reformed theology and more to do with changes within culture, technology, and a whole lot else outside the WCF.
LikeLike
OK, Darryl, here you are actually quoting someone and not obviously misconstruing their meaning! Seriously, good job. Keep it up.
This is where Kloosterman and every good neocalvinist must part ways. (Does Kloosterman self-identify as a neocalvinist?)
I’ll read up on his replies to VanDrunen’s book. I expect he’ll have some acceptable criticisms to make. But for the neocalvinist, the issue is not about the Bible addressing our cultural activities. We are anti-biblicist. Remember the theonomist complaint against neocalvinism.
LikeLike
Jonah,
The Bible Speaks to all of life.
The Confession is a world view (but doesn’t speak to all of life).
DGH has a world view.
Huh?
I’m sure there’s logic in this string somewhere, but I thought the world view proponents were supposed to be philosophically inclined.
LikeLike
Baus, not to be too snarky, but welcome to your world. Seriously, you don’t know Kloosterman or his arguments? Even here at oldlife, Jonah is I gather a Redeemer grad and I suppose studied with Wolters. And for Jonah Kloosterman is a sound proponent of neo-Calvinism. So you may want to check if your papers within the world view movement are still in order.
LikeLike
CVD, these are good summary explanations from Herman Bavinck’s “Reformed Dogmatics” on your question re: the Word of God “speaking to culture”:
Accordingly, the relationship that has to exist between the church and the world is in the first place organic, moral, and spiritual in character. Christ – even now – is prophet, priest, and king; and by his Word and Spirit he persuasively impacts the entire world. Because of him there radiates from everyone who believes in him a renewing and sanctifying influence upon the family, society, state, occupation, business, art, science, and so forth. The spiritual life is meant to refashion the natural and moral life in its full depth and scope according to the laws of God. Along this organic path Christian truth and the Christian life are introduced into all circles of the natural life, so that life in the household and the extended family is restored to honor, the wife (woman) is again viewed as the equal of the husband (man), the sciences and arts are Christianized, the level of the moral life is elevated, society and state are reformed, laws and institutions, morals and customs are made Christian.
And another:
“In regulating the relationship between the church and state, therefore, we must remember the following:
1.) Though its witness has been weakened by multiformity, the church cannot resist stating the demand that all creatures, arts, sciences, family, society, state, and so forth must submit to the Word of the Lord.
LikeLike
Mark,
I thought you were insistent that the “confessions” assert that the Word of God “speaks to the culture.” I didn’t know Bavink had been elevated to confessional status.
LikeLike
Jeff:
You wrote: “But my sense is that legislators, for example, are not so straight-cuffed by the 1st Amendment that their moral compass cannot play a role in their decisions. Right?”
Legislators’ moral compass, whether secular to Christian, certainly plays a role in their decisions. (Non-discrimination laws are premised on the moral principle that all persons similarly situated deserve equal treatment.) But if they want to norm laws to Christian norms, they have to do so by subterfuge and indirection. They have to find some “netural,” non-religious purpose and basis for the law. If a court concludes that the law has a religious purpose or effect, it will strike it down as a violation of the Establishment Clause.
The Supreme Court’s test for evaluating whether a law passes the Establishment Clause test is:
(1) The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
(2) The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
(3) The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
You’ll note that when the Christian public-interest law firm defended California’s Prop 8, they had to articulate non-religious rationales for the law.
LikeLike
CVD, you asked for me to give a definition, and I gave you one. I think Bavinck’s exposition/explanation is consistent with what the confessions testify. But that does not elevate Bavinck’s explanation to the status of the confessions themselves.
Instead of playing diversionary games, why not interact with the definition. And perhaps you could get around to answering my original question: where has Hart proven that the “confessions do not say the Bible speaks to culture”?
LikeLike
Mark,
Following on CVD’s astute point, how does Bavinck square with the HB Q/A 114:
Q. But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments?
Answer: No: but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience…
If most of us can’t even hope for the little bit that the holiest of us get in this life then how thee heck can we speak so glowingly about our effect on the wider world? Could it be that even in Bavinck we can detect a relatively low view of human sin and its actual abiding effects? Does grace actually come out our fingers tips? Was Rome right that we need to get the bathtub of grace regularly refilled?
LikeLike
Mark:
Isn’t the burden on your side to prove that the confessions say “the Bible speaks to culture” rather than on Dr. Hart to prove a negative? His book Secular Faith and the body of his blog work speak for themselves, don’t they? I think your confessional argument is more rhetorical than substantive.
I’m not ready to posthumously admit Bavink to the Theocrat or Transformationalist Club yet on the basis of this quote, when you read the rest of his work. Maybe small (t) transformationalist. I don’t see in this quote where he purports to be summarizing the confessions as distinct from charting his own course, which of course he was free to do. I also don’t take him to be arguing that the institutional church (he uses the term “organic”) may/should be transforming culture.
LikeLike
Hi Jed.
To help clarify the discussion, here is a quote from Dr. Wolters in his book, Creation Regained:
“For our purposes, worldview will be defined as ‘the comprehensive framework of one’s basic beliefs about things.’ ….. First of all, ‘things’ is a deliberately vague term that refers to anything about which it is possible to have a belief. I am taking it in the most general sense imaginable ….. Even God can in this sense be said to be included among the ‘things’ about which we have basic beliefs†(p. 2).
So there you have it from the horse’s mouth. A worldview therefore is not restricted to this-worldly matters, but since we live in this world our understanding of it, to understate the case, will be significant. I personally don’t mind to define a worldview as the sum total of one’s beliefs about everything whatsoever, but Wolters talks about the “the comprehensive framework of one’s basic beliefs†because matters such as, for example, epistemology, meta-ethics, ontology, theology, anthropology, teleology, etc. are more foundational and crucial to your understanding and interpretation of the world than your view of tulips, the Philadelphia Phillies, hammers, decaffeinated coffee, etc.
So when Dr. Hart says that “the Reformed Confessions say nothing about a Christian worldview as an article of the Christian faith,†he is right only in one sense, namely, that the Confessions do not mention the term “worldview.†But he is wrong because the Confessions teach us what our worldview ought to be. They teach us what we ought to believe, hence, “worldview.†The teaching of the Belgic and Westminster Confessions concerning God and Scripture have significance and implications for your “basic beliefs†about all of life.
Hope this helps.
LikeLike
CVD’s astute point,
LOL.
If most of us can’t even hope for the little bit that the holiest of us get in this life then how thee heck can we speak so glowingly about our effect on the wider world?
Because on a scale of “10”, even a “1” is a glorious work of Christ. A star set against the black night sky does not dispel the darkness entirely, yet it is a glorious light shining in a dark place. Men marvel at it. Captains of ships navigated by it.
LikeLike
Mark, come on, quit day dreaming. It’s a response like that which only helps show you don’t take human sin nearly as seriously as you ought. Why, some might even suggest it’s sanctified narcissism and religious fantasy.
LikeLike
Mark, here’s proof. What does the Confession teach about grammar? How about theater? What about symphonic music or even pop if you’re not into the whole orchestral thing?
In other words, silent means silent. What’s so hard about that?
LikeLike
Jonah, you are so deep in the neo-Calvinist worldview that you have begged the question. For you, a worldview means a view about culture. So if the Confession provides a worldview, then it must speak to culture. Again I say, huh? If the Confession is silent about culture, then maybe it’s worldview is about the beliefs that Christians should confess because that is what the Bible reveals. But because the Bible is silent about the arts, about language and letters, about manners and food, the confession is silent about culture and does not have your coveted worldview.
Which again explains why neo-Calvinists put the neo in neo-Calvinism.
LikeLike
Here’s a reference to “culture” from the WCF 1.6:
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and 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.
Words like “common” and “light of nature” and “general rules of the Word” are not very specific. So to say that the WCF gives a Christian worldview is somewhat nebulous or at least misleading, as that term is not always clearly defined.
LikeLike
Darryl, just because the Confession may not speak specifically–by name- about every cultural manifestation does not mean it speaks *to* none. What is so hard about that?
The family- or school-or government are cultural institutions, are they not? The Bible speaks to them, doesn’t it? Even your colleague R.S. Clark in one of his more lucid moments acknowledged that the Bible speaks *to* everything.
LikeLike
Jonah,
I was actually referring to the substantial components of a worldview as well. I realize that folks can think through and develop worldview with a great deal of intent, and even claim that they possess a confessional worldview. I am arguing that even if this is the case, the areas where confession touches significant worldview components, the majority of how someone views the world is incumbent on other inputs. Some of these are ubiquitous such as culture, and the era in which one lives. Let’s argue that Johnny Reformed Dude III says he has a Reformed worldview as 28 year old today, his is probably substantially different than his father J. Reformed Dude Jr. who is 60 does, and John R. Dude Sr. at the ripe old age of 84 possesses a different one from son and grandson. This is the case even if all hold to the WCF as their statement of faith.
They are likely to have different upbringings in different cultural settings, with different vocations, and different approaches to life, and might even land on different sides of the 2k-transformationalist debates as well. This is because something as ecclesiastically and otherworldly focused as a Confession might touch a few ways we view the world, but honestly when dealing with our views of this world I would argue that the Confession has a smaller influence than you make it to be simply because other inputs are more formative to one’s view and practical approach to the world than the confession is. I don’t see “Christian/Reformed” worldview proponents grappling with the fact that even as important as faith is in one’s view of the world, it is not going to be the only major controlling factor in worldview formation, even for the philosophically inclined.
This is why I think the confessional 2k crowd does well in avoiding all of the monolithic Reformed world & life view rhetoric, not so much because they analyze what might be substantial influences on worldview, but because they rightly understand that even where the confessions intersect this-world issues, it simply isn’t substantial enough to control a worldview.
LikeLike
Mark,
Here’s the problem. Your hermeneutic is selective. You see what you want. I speak to Christianity specifically and yet you don’t give me credit for that. You actually argue that I deny important aspects of the faith. And yet the confession is silent and you think it speaks of culture. Maybe silence is preferable to actual speech because you can fill the void however YOU want (along with approval from Dr. K., of course).
Do you even know what culture is? If you think the family and the school and government are cultural, then you have forgotten words like biological, legal, educational, and political.
So is culture for YOU whatever YOU think is important? That is hard. Because everyone is not YOU.
LikeLike
Darryl, as you like to say, welcome to your world. You operate with a selectively narrow definition of culture. I agree with what you said in the Christ and Culture Forum earlier this year that culture is a “murky term”. You defined it as “..all that stuff in which humans engage that is not economic, political, and civil”. You re-stated that it is all “..what’s human but not necessarily institutionalized in the church, family, and the state”.
Examples you *included* in the definition culture were “…language, food, values, morals, and education is a part of it…
Let’s accept your definition for the sake of argument. May we conclude that your position is that the confessions are silent on whether the Bible speaks to “values, morals, and education”?
LikeLike
Mark, No, the confessions are silent on education.
LikeLike
But not silent on “values and morals”?
LikeLike
Mark, I’m really surprised that you think the Bible does not teach morality.
LikeLike
So you believe the Bible does speak to culture insofar as “culture” includes morals?
LikeLike
Mark, I believe the Bible teaches Christian morality. I believe that morals are part of a culture. I do not think that the Bible teaches morality for the sake of a Christian culture. There is no such thing as a Christian culture. There was a biblical culture in the OT. Israel was a state, a church, and a culture. Now Christians are Greek, Roman, French, Canadian, Brazilian, and even Dutch. Those places have their own cultures. Those cultures include believers and non-believers. Culture is a common enterprise. As such, the Bible does not address it.
LikeLike
Doesn’t the Bible teach morality that is universal for Christians and non-Christians alike?
LikeLike
Mark, this is where neo-Calvinism and theonomy breaks down. Christian morality can only come from a regenerate heart. You seem to think you can have a Christian culture with Christian morality. But how could non-Christians ever be part of such a culture if they need regeneration to participate in it? That’s why 2k and NL is so handy. It shows how non-Christians can be “good” in a civic sense and how Christians can participate in the common cultural life.
LikeLike
Darryl, if, per impossible, the Christian God did not exist, woudl there still be natural law?
LikeLike
DGH: You seem to think you can have a Christian culture with Christian morality. But how could non-Christians ever be part of such a culture if they need regeneration to participate in it?
I’ve never found this argument sensible. You don’t think that Christians keep the law all the time, do you? And this doesn’t prevent them from being a part of the church, right?
So how would the true fact that non-Christians don’t keep the law show that non-Christians shouldn’t be under the law? They don’t seem to keep natural law any more than any other law, so what kind of test are you proposing here?
LikeLike
Jeff:
I would say that unbelievers, like all humanity, are born under the covenant of works and have broken covenant. They have the law written on the conscience (Rom. 2:14-15), which Calvin and the Reformed orthodox identify with NL. Calvin and the Reformed orthodox wrote extenvisely about how much civil good unbelievers can accomplish under NL in the common realm, but they distinguished it sharply from the new obedience. The Christian’s new obedience is the fruit of faith and a regenerated heart. The unbeliever can produce a civic virtue, but not obedience that flows from the heart as a fruit of saving faith. How could an unbeliever keep the first table of the law? What would that look like?
Attepts to “Christianize” the common realm are, in the two kingdoms view, therefore futile.
LikeLike
Jeff,
The Heidelberg confesses that even Christians make only the smallest of beginnings in santification in this life, but it isn’t their partial obedience that places them in the church. It’s their faith in the One whose perfect obedience is imputed to them.
LikeLike
Jeff, first, I don’t think the idea is that believers keep the law perfectly but that they are by definition, contrary to unbelievers, specially but imperfectly empowered by the Spirit to do so.
Second, and this more to the point, the question is really one about participation and what are the grounds for it. When we conceive of the church, though they certainly exist, we are not compelled to carve out space for hypocrites and tares, indeed we are compelled to make things to be such that it might dispel the wolves from the fold (and nurture the sheep, of course). But when we conceive of the civil sphere we necessarily must make room for diversity. Citizenship in the church being voluntary is about intolerance, citizenship in the world being involuntary is about tolerance. This was essentially Machen’s apologetic for militancy.
So if you want to do the civil the way we do the ecclesiastical then you end up necessarily having a “one world order.†Not only that, but why wouldn’t it then also work in the reverse, which is to say a “generous orthodoxyâ€? Don’t those prospects for the respective spheres make the hairs on your neck stand up?
LikeLike
Mark,
While the Scripture’s authority is binding on all men and we are all liable to Divine judgment for breaking God’s Law, it seems that God hasn’t enforced his law in such a way where it is consistently upheld in human culture. This isn’t because God isn’t enforcing his law, rather his final accounting will be rendered in eschatalogical judgment. For now, God’s judgment is manifest in allowing man to continue sinning according to his God-denying sinful nature (Romans 1:18ff.).
Given the fact that God himself is suspending judgment for now, and leaving his Law unenforced except through the imperfect means of human governments; why then would Christians be charged with the task of upholding the Law (in whatever form) on God’s behalf? This question is even more difficult if you charge non-Xians with the task of keeping and upholding God’s Law in human society. So, while arguing that human culture and government should be seeking to use Scripture as a norm for their given societies sounds good on the surface (to some at least); it is presuming a responsibility that God has not laid upon believers or unbelievers alike. The fundamental responsibility of the unbeliever is to repent and believe upon Jesus; the commission of the church is clear as well and is expressed clearly in the Belgic Confession (Art. 29); the believer is to obey God in whatever stations of life he has been appointed (church, family, vocation etc.). The responsibility for re-making culture in accordance with God’s Law is a work that God will accomplish through building his church, in which Christians participate; and through making all things new in the world to come, in which we do not participate.
Where in the NT are we called to renovate culture? Like Dr. Hart has stated before, what value is there in subjecting the unregenerate to the morality that defines the regenerate? I haven’t heard a satisfactory answer on this yet, maybe that is because the Scriptures aren’t meant to be a legal/cultural handbook on morality.
LikeLike
Darryl, actually this is where R2k breaks down.
You have Biblical morality applying only to Christians. You do not see universal standards of morality that apply to all men, as revealed in Divine Writ. Then when you see Christians operating with unbelievers in building a “culture” {which you’ve previously defined as including morality/morals}, Biblical morality does not apply in that endeavor. In fact, you think that endeavor cannot reflect Christian morality, since the unbeliever is unregenerate So whatever that “morality” is, I don’t know; but this “civic goodness” is not measured against Scripture’s objective testimony on God’s moral standards.
This is not a 1st table vs. 2nd table argument. On a more fundamental level this is a “table vs. no table” argument.
LikeLike
Jeff, so they can’t keep any law. That’s not an argument for making the laws biblical, though of course the reason Kloosterman wants biblical law is because that the only way to interpret Natural Law. (Which, by the way, you have not really come clean on this yourself.)
LikeLike
Mark:
Dr. Hart can answer for himself, but you appear to be arguing against straw men. I’ve never read Dr. Hart (or Reformed theology more generally) to argue that there are no “universal standards of morality that apply to all men.” On the contrarty, Reformed theology and the Westminster standards identify the law with the covenant of works. Post fall, the terms of the covenant of works continue to obligate all human beings and must be perfectly fulfilled personally or by the Mediator. So what’s the problem?
LikeLike
CVD, read again what I have written. The “universal standards of morality that apply to all men” was followed by the words “as revealed in Divine Writ”. Hart denies that the universal morality as revealed in Divine Writ speaks to all men. Rather, this Biblical morality addresses Christians only– but not when they engage with unbelievers in “culture”. That’s a big problem.
LikeLike
Mark, like CVD says, I affirm the Covenant of Works and the demands of the law on all men (and women and children). But we are talking about culture and the Covenant of Works is not the basis for culture. I sure wish you could keep the topics straight. Are you this cagey with Judges?
LikeLike
The “demands of the law” on “all men”– writ large in Scripture– do involve cultural morality. It’s this basic Reformed Christianity that looks cagey to you, Darryl.
LikeLike
Mark, your saying this — demands of the law involve cultural morality — doesn’t make it so. What on earth is cultural morality? And why do the critics of 2k keep playing verbal games? Is that the only way to arrive at your integated mind and universe, use enough adjectives together with the object of your desire and there you have it — a Christian world and life view.
Don’t you see how laughable this kind of reasoning is? It may inspire the saints who want inspiration, but it’s not going to transform any culture.
LikeLike
Mark:
Dr. Hart can “carry his own water” as they say. But when he stated @ October 25, 2010 at 2:45 am
Mark, this is where neo-Calvinism and theonomy breaks down. Christian morality can only come from a regenerate heart. You seem to think you can have a Christian culture with Christian morality. But how could non-Christians ever be part of such a culture if they need regeneration to participate in it? That’s why 2k and NL is so handy. It shows how non-Christians can be “good†in a civic sense and how Christians can participate in the common cultural life.
The term used is “Christian morality” and it’s source is the regenerated heart, i.e., the Christian. The issue is the fundamental distinction, even antithesis, between the redeemed covenant keeper and the unredeemed covenant breaker. You can’t expect to successfully enforce in the civil realm the standards of the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of the beloved Son, on or against those who haven’t been transferred or translated into that kingdom.
But another reason why 2k and NL are handy, to extend DGH’s remark: it provides the context for evangelism: proclaiming the gospel so that God can convert the ungodly and gather his people to himself.
LikeLike
Mark,
I take it that what you are trying to do is to take issue with the assertion advanced by many 2K proponents, such as Dr. David Van Drunen, that God has not given covenantally the revelation of Scripture to the world at large but rather to the covenant community.
Dr. David Van Drunen, for example, argues that “in a certain sense, Scripture is not the appropriate moral standard for the civil kingdom.†Why? He argues: “Biblical morality is characterized by an indicative-imperative structure. That is, all of its imperatives (moral commands) are preceeded by and grounded in indicatives (statements of fact), either explicitly or implicitly.” He further reasons that the “indicatives†in Scripture -—the things which tell us who we are—-are not true of the world at large. And if the “indicatives†do not apply to the unbelievers, the “imperatives†“cannot be taken from Scripture and placed upon them.” “The most important indicative that grounds the imperatives in Scripture is that the recipients of Scripture are the covenant people, that is, members of the community of the covenant of grace…..” Since membership in the civil kingdom is not limited to believers, the imperatives of Scripture do not bind members of that kingdom. These imperatives are not “directly applicable to non-Christians.â€
From this premise, Dr. Van Drunen argues: “Generally speaking, at least, argument and discussions with our unbelieving neighbors ought to occur in terms of the natural moral law, not in terms of Scripture—although, of course, Scripture gives us as believers important information and instructions about our lives in various realms.”
Since you apparently hail from the neo-Cal perspective, this would be anathama to your thinking. But with that said, it is nevertheless not fair to say that 2K advocates contend that there are “no universal standards of morality” that bind non-believers. Because Dr. Van Drunen and Dr. Hart embrace the covenant of works as binding on all men and women both in and outside of the covenant community, believer and unbeliever, they agree that God’s universal moral standards bind the whole world, and they are accessible through natural law to the whole world, which of course was Paul’s argument in Romans 1 and 2.
LikeLike
CVD,
I’ve been waiting for someone to make that point explicitly. That’s really great, thanks. Perhaps I could supplement it a little bit, and recommend VanDrunen’s newer book on the Two Kingdoms (out this week or next).
An important covenantal supplement to the COW in the Two Kingdoms discussion is the common grace covenant with Noah in Genesis 9. You made reference to what Paul does in Romans 1 and 2 – DVD works a lot with the relationship between what Paul does there and the Noahic covenant. There is where we 2Kers go for the legitimacy of the common kingdom as instituted and sustained by God. There is no redemption or special revelation that properly belongs to that kingdom but it nevertheless produces men with whom Abraham can later covenant with and that Paul observes as “doing the (natural) law.”
LikeLike
CVD, I’ll remind you -again– that I contend that Hart denies that there are universal moral standards writ in Scripture that bind all men. You don’t refute that, but confirm the assertion with citations from Van Drunen.
Neither have VD’s or Hart’s position proven consistent with what the Reformed confess about the scriptural testimony found in Romans. They misread it as an argument that natural law is alone sufficient for men judging moral standards in the civil realm. Even as R2k proponents acknowledge that “natural law” is essentially equivalent to the Decalogue, they argue that one must be regenerate to read the Bible– so therefore those inscripturated moral standards can only apply to Christians. This is of a piece with VD’s inaugural lecture where he argues for a distinct “dual ethic”, one that applies to believers and one that applies to unbelievers.
R2kt should be anathema to any thinking that hails from basic Reformed confessionalism.
LikeLike
Mark:
You haven’t proven that the Reformed confessions are the monopoly of neo-Cals. VanDrunen argues persuasively that 2K thought was historically found in Reformed thought from the Reformation to the preesent, and that natural law theory was central to traditional Reformed or Calvinist thought.
Natural law is sufficient to condemn the unbeliever. Adding inscripturted law does not help the unbeliever, who can neither spiritually discern it, nor obey it, nor please God by it. Gospel can help him.
Thank you for mentioning DVD’s inaugural lecture. It is a masterpiece and well worth listening to again. For those who haven’t heard it, here is a key graph:
“We are dual citizens in a sense, but our two citizenships are incommensurate. We belong to the spiritual kingdom as we can never again belong to the civil kingdom, and hence we belong to the church as we can never again belong to any state, society, or culture. Christians are called to live lives shaped and determined by the heavenly kingdom, which means the life of the justified, life beyond the judgment, in which we are no longer judged and no longer judge.
“Yet as we are called to participate in the civil kingdom we are compelled to judge and be judged by the people of this world. We must submit to the judgments of the market, the critic, the referee, the court of law, and we contribute to these same judgments upon others as consumers, voters, and the like.
“But in the church we find a community filled with those who, like us, know the freedom that comes in justification, the freedom neither to judge nor be judged, the freedom to be merciful and forgiving as Christ himself is. The church is a haven and shelter in the midst of the often cruel judgments of the world, a place where we may love and be loved no matter what quality our labor, how beautiful our music, how long our criminal record… The church is indeed our mother, who with open arms constantly welcomes us home.”
LikeLike
You haven’t proven that the Reformed confessions are the monopoly of neo-Cals.
I’ve never set out to prove that.
VanDrunen argues persuasively that 2K thought was historically found in Reformed thought from the Reformation to the preesent, and that natural law theory was central to traditional Reformed or Calvinist thought.
As Kloosterman stated, the question is not whether “two kingdoms” or “natural law” were found in Reformed thought. The question is whether VD’s version of 2k and NL lines up with Reformed thought on those topics. Perhaps you can keep an open mind as Kloosterman’s review continues.
Thank you for mentioning DVD’s inaugural lecture. It is a masterpiece..
It is a masterpiece in the same way the Picasso in Chicago is a masterpiece of deconstruction art, where we visitors frequently ask: “Is that a woman? is it a horse? is it an alien??”
LikeLike
Mark,
Thank you for the art criticism. Granted Picasso was only Spanish, but Kloosterman is no Dutch Master. I’m still waiting for the proof that his Reformed worldviewism is an article of the Reformed faith mandated by the Reformed confessions.
LikeLike
MarkVDm, do you ever respond without looking first whether a point agrees with Dr. K. or not? CVD makes a very telling point from DVD (keeping these VD’s straight is a challenge) about the indicative imperative structure of the law as revealed in Scripture. And all you can say is that Dr. K. disagrees with DVD? Surely you don’t argue that way in a court of law?
LikeLike
I’m still waiting for the proof ..
I {and others} have for 2+ years been laying out confessional arguments. I am nearly convinced that no amount of proof by confessional citations will convince R2k adherents of their error. Just as the Reformed world witnessed the FV-ers grow bolder in brushing off confessional critiques, we are seeing the mirror image performance by the R2k crowd. Resolution of FV debates came not by blog discussion, but by ecclesiastical judgment. By God’s grace the churches are now waking up R2k. It appears the same resolution will be necessary on this score.
Rev. Thomas Vanden Heuvel is the former editor of the Outlook and is a man who knows of what he speaks. He penned the following in a letter to Christian Renewal:
“We agree with Dr. Kloosterman’s assessment of what will happen in the Reformed community, as we know it, if these natural law, two-kingdom views espoused by Dr. Van Drunen and others, take root….We urge every reader of this magazine to exert the mental energy that will be required to follow the lines of argumentation that Dr. Kloosterman will present in upcoming articles. It is necessary for the peace of the church and survival of the Reformed faith with its Calvinistic world and life view. Please do not underestimate the importance of the struggle we are facing.”
May God give us all ears to hear.
LikeLike
Mark, somehow I have missed your blog.
If you mean that you keep insisting on Article 36 and the sliver of the Canons of Dort that Dr. K. keeps mangling, those have hardly qualified as arguments.
Really, the best you can muster is scare tactics like your quote from Tom. Somehow you and Dr. K along with Tom completely ignore what anti-2k, integrated worldview thinking did to the CRC. Again, your worldview is irrational because it ignores reality.
LikeLike
Mark,
It is offensive and a measure of your obduracy that you would compare the FV to the doctrine of 2K. The FV threatens the gospel, “a matter of first importance” (1 Cor. 15). The biblical doctrine of 2K, even if you’re right that it’s shot through with error, imperils only a declining cultural consensus that once prevailed among a few Dutch churchmen. Is losing Top Dog status so threatening that you have to resort to scare tactics and threats rather than reasoned arguments?
LikeLike
CVD, it is measure of how tightly closed your ears are that you think my post above compared FV doctrine to R2k doctrine. Certainly the doctrine is not the same. In fact, I see FV and R2kt as committing *opposite* end errors re: the law & the covenant of grace.
Rather, if you read more carefully, you should see I was referring to the arrogant distraction tactics in response to confessional critique that is nearly identical. You unintentionally supplied a good example with the “fear of losing Top Dog status” imputation-of-motive remark.
So your insistence on having a reasoned argument when you refuse to use reasoned argument is, well, unreasonable.
LikeLike
Mark,
If 2k poses such a virulent threat to Reformed Orthodoxy, why hasn’t there been actions taken in the ecclesiastical courts? It might actually do some good if some of you that are so hopping mad over 2k would take it to the courts. If this were to happen, I am sure that 2k advocates would be able to make a reasonable defense of their position. It is not as if 2k isn’t w/o biblical warrant. All I see is a spitting contest as of yet, and nothing substantive in terms of ecclesiasical decisions against 2k. The fact that WCF was revised in accordance with the separation of church and state gives strength and precedent to the 2k, SOTC position. It would seem that you would have to fight a battle on two fronts – first for confessional revision, second against the Scriptural tenability of 2k theology.
The problem as I see it is that any efforts to expunge 2k from Reformed denominations is that anti-2k concerns are not churchly or doctrinal, rather cultural and philosophical. 2k, SOTC congregations do take the confessions very seriously in how they conduct the ministry of Word and Sacrament. It is incumbent on you to demonstrate how this falls short in executing the marks of the church unfaithfully, or how we are out of step with our Confessional standards.
So instead of the saber rattling, make good on your threats, our denominations would be healthier if you would.
LikeLike
Mark, where is the confessional critique? Dr. K. is not the confession.
LikeLike
Darryl,
when I pointed out (for the nth time) that neocalvinism is not biblicism,
you wrote:
“you may want to check if your papers within the world view movement are still in order.”
I think that Dooyeweerd and (the granddaddy of postWWII neocalvinism in NorthAmerica) Evan Runner trump Kloosterman.
Anyway, there is no “worldview movement”.
You like to lump neocalvinists in with everyone else with whom you disagree, I understand. But I’m sorry. The best neocalvinists are also confessionalists (Dooyeweerd and Runner both were), and we’re as much at odds with theonomy, biblicism, FV, evangelicalism, social gospel, et.al. as you are.
LikeLike
Baus, I’ll grant you that folks like Dooyeweerd don’t cite their Bibles too much. Their knack is philosophy. And my objection here is that I don’t regard philosophy as the queen of intellectual endeavor.
But here is your problem — to call something a Christian world view implies that Christ is at work somewhere in this outlook. And the only way we know Christ is through the Bible (and the spirit). So at least Dr. K. is a consistent Christian worldview guy by running (or at least standing, yelling, and pointing) to Scripture to interpret gen rev. But the neo-cals whom you regard as the bomb are in an awkward position of doing something Christian without Scripture (or so it would seem).
In both cases, though, the neo-cals, as DVD shows, balk and then fumble (sorry to mix sports metaphors) natural law. And the reason appears to be the bogey of dualism.
LikeLike
The problem you propose is not a problem for neocalvinists, since we don’t buy into your definitions. If you want to engage neocalvinism, you’ll have to understand it first.
LikeLike
Baus, could you at least acknowledge that you are not the holder of the true, the proud, and the faithful neo-Calvinism. This is all I seem to get from you. Neo-Calvinism isn’t what I say. I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Okay, is there a neo-Calvinist club with dues and regular inspection of those who write using its name? I doubt there is.
So are you saying that Kloosterman is not a neo-Calvinist? I’d love to see his reaction when you presented him with that news.
LikeLike
Darryl, are you ready to “at least” acknowledge that you are not a holder of faithful presbyterianism or of true reformed confessionalism?
You know, there are PCUSA and Church of Scotland presbyterians. There are EPC presbyterians. There are RCA and CRC folk who say they are Confessional.
(btw, the CRC is less Kuyperian than it is Confessionally Reformed).
So, should we excuse everyone who refuses to look deep enough to see the difference and the reasons for those differences?
I’m catching up on Kloosterman’s views; still reading. My main point is that biblicism is not neocalvinist and viceversa. To accept the one is to depart from the other. I’ll give you my verdict on his views eventually.
My secondary point is that not all views that espouse some kind of “Christian” approach or view of the non-ecclesial are the same. Neocalvinists aren’t soft-theocrats any more than (neo)Two-kingdom’ists are soft-atheists.
If I sound like a broken record, so be it. Here I stand.
LikeLike
Baus, you’re kidding. Presbyterians outside the OPC? Unfrigginbelievable.
I would hold a mirror up to your views and ask Baus to heal himself. Whenever I critique someone here who claims to be a neo-Calvinist I can count on Baus to pop up and tell me that I am not critiquing the real deal of neo-Calvinism. I guess I need to run all my neo-Cal posts by you.
But it could be that your own ideas about neo-Calvinism are a tad sheltered.
I get it though, I am not the only one who understands confessional Reformed Protestantism. But at least I have a body of teachings (the confessions) and a group of communions upon which to base some of my own personal convictions. What exists as the standard for neo-Cal’s other than a lot of worldview, smoke, mirrors, and inspiration.
Do you guys ever huddle and agree on the same play?
LikeLike
*sigh*.
I’m sorry, you missed my point again. Let me be clearer.
My point is not that you aren’t the only one who understands confessional Reformed Protestantism. My point is that if someone criticizes the PCUSA, or rejects their view about x, y, or z… does that categorically involve an objection to Presbyterianism? If one argues that the RCA is wrong about this or that, has Reformed Confessionalism been refuted?
The answer is no.
Now, you may ask “why not”?
The answer is that you and I hold to Presbyterianism, to the Confessional Reformed Faith, and we have good reason to say that those who disagree with us in the PCUSA and RCA do not hold to such a system. (Or do you actually think the PCUSA are good Presbyterians?!)
The funny thing is, you have challenged me in the past to speak up when neocalvinists err. So, here I am saying that Kloosterman’s way of putting his objection to 2k (as expressed in his first review essay) is not good neocalvinism in so far as it is biblicist. I’m saying Kloosterman has it wrong. You are objecting to Kloosterman’s biblicism, and I’m saying you have neocalvinism on your side on that point.
You ask what exists as a standard for neocalvinism.
Well, if you think the past 100 years of life and work are smoke, I’m suggesting you should try inhaling a little.
LikeLike
Baus, if the past 100 years are not smoke, then what is Kloosterman smoking? I am not trying to get you to turn on him. But here is a thinker who fully thinks he is within the pale and carrying the neo-Cal banner high. Now you say he doesn’t get it (or at least parts of it). So to whom are the unenligthened to turn for the genuine article?
In other words, the neo-Cal project is not nearly as coherent as your running jabs here at OLTS allege. That’s fine for them not to be coherent. But for you to say I don’t get neo-Cal’s, when you yourself don’t seem to understand the variety (and perhaps deformity) borders on folly.
LikeLike
I think Kloosterman, like many, is likely imbibing in Evangelicalism or whatever other sources of biblicism are alien to both Confessionalism and neocalvinism (as they have historically gone hand-in-hand).
I certainly grant that the neocal project is varied. But “not coherent’… well, unless you think “liberal presbyterians” somehow make the confessional reformed faith “not coherent,” my analogy stands.
I think neocals who are clear about rejecting biblicism (which is the *majority* of them, and includes Dooyeweerd, Runner, and Clouser) are the “genuine article”. This also accounts for the predominant criticism of neocalvinism in Anglophone circles, viz. that neocals aren’t biblicist (biblicism being considered a virtue by most/all non-confessionalists).
LikeLike
Baus, great, you guys, the real ones, aren’t biblicists. So how exactly do you do something Christian without the Bible? Where do you get the truths to do Christian philosophy apart from Scripture?
So you filled in one hole only to dig another for yourself.
LikeLike
I really hope you are wanting to know the answer to your questions. If so, this would mean that you are ready to learn about neocalvinism.
Mind you, what you take as “Christian” (ie, exclusively the ecclesial-theological) is rejected by neocalvinism. So, if you’re looking for how something might be considered ecclesial-theological apart from Scripture, you will remain frustrated and uninformed.
The question is whether (and if so, in what way) could something be considered Christian in a non-theologico-ecclesial way. If you are intent on dismissing this categorically and out-of-hand (as you have to this point), you will never be ready to learn what neocalvinism is about.
In any case, you will find a treatment of this question in… (wait for it…)
Chapters 5 & 6 of Roy Clouser’s The Myth Of Religious Neutrality (2005).
I’d love to see you offer a critique of those chapters (p.89 – 128).
LikeLike
Baus, I completed my homework assignment and I still have a question for the teacher. Why do you call something Christian that doesn’t even mention Christ or redemption? And why call it biblical (why radical is another question) when the Bible is so little in view? I know, these are the questions of desultory fundamentalists, I guess. But what Clouser does is much better called theistic rather than Christian. And please do keep in mind that if you can call this form of reasoning and argument Christian, you can pour a whole lot more into the term as well. Consider the CRC.
But I still don’t understand why the notion of presuppositions or basic beliefs informing everything we do is particularly Christian or particularly helpful. On the one hand, I’m not sure the Bible requires believers to be so self-conscious about epistemology. And on the helpful side of things, most of life is lived at the intuitive level of perception — a sense of what is right or fitting or appropriate — rather than some philosophical algorithm that allows me to go deep and find the inner recesses of my belief and how it informs everything I do — or not. If people actually lived this way, they’d still be in bed deciding whether they have sufficient philosophical warrant to get up.
Mind you, I value the work of philosophers in the classroom and study. But making this stuff an everyday Christian practice is just silly. Punt on Clouser and read Cicero.
LikeLike
These are legit questions, and when I finish my essay (chapter) on the issue for publication (in a forthcoming book) I’ll ask for your feedback.
Briefly, “why the notion of presuppositions informing everything we do is… particularly helpful“?
Well, if the presupps are Christian, then they can inform what we do in such a way as to render what we do distinctively Christian in some way. Of course one may have non-Christian theistic presupps. And, in any case, one can have presupps (and so action) that is ultimately at odds with ones genuine Christian faith. There’s the rub.
“most of life is live at the intuitive level…”
No doubt. But that does not mean that anyone can escape having religiously-directed presupps that actually do inform what they do. I don’t see what’s “silly” about having a level of self-consciousness about what is ones view of reality and how it is directing ones action. It seems rather manifestly important and serious if it is possible that ones presupps and action are at odds with ones Christian faith.
To punt on Clouser and to read Cicero without Christian presuppositional reflection as recommended by Clouser is tantamount to opening oneself to adopt presupps and action that may be at odds with ones Christian faith without questioning. If there is no need to be self-conscious about ones presupps, why bother reading Cicero or anything? Just go with the flow, secure in your presupposition (oops!) that you’re in no danger of ever presupposing or doing anything at odds with your faith.
How innocent and simple such a life must be.
LikeLike