Critics of two-kingdom theology from Dutch backgrounds often cite the Belgic Confession’s teaching on the civil magistrate as grounds for rejection. For those who don’t have a copy of the confession handy, Article 36 reads:
And the government’s task is not limited to caring for and watching over the public domain but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry, with a view to removing and destroying all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist; to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ; and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere; to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone, as he requires in his Word.
What said critics fail to mention is that Article 36 has been soundly rejected by the Dutch and the Calvinists among them.
First, the North American descendants of the Dutch Reformed church would revise the article to remove the magistrate’s responsibility for upholding the true religion and destroying all infidelity. The Christian Reformed Church Synod of 1958 called this affirmation of Article 36 “unbiblical†and substituted the following:
They should do it [i.e., remove every obstacle to the preaching of the gospel and to divine worship] in order that the Word of God may have free course; the kingdom of Jesus Christ may make progress; and every anti-Christian power may be resisted.
That may give the magistrate more sway over religion than 2k folk would like, but it is far removed from the original language of the Belgic Confession. What is more, the modern Dutch churches regard the standard by which many neo-Calvinists critique 2k as “unbiblical.â€
Second, Abraham Kuyper himself, the Calvinist than whom no Calvinist is more neo, rejected Article 36’s assertion of the magistrate’s power to punish infidelity. As pointed out in a previous post, Kuyper wrote specifically and candidly about his disagreement with Article 36. Among the assertions he made were:
We would rather be considered not Reformed and insist that men ought not to kill heretics, than that we are left with the Reformed name as the prize for assisting in the shedding of the blood of heretics.
It is our conviction: 1) that the examples which are found in the Old Testament are of no force for us because the infallible indication of what was or was not heretical which was present at that time is now lacking.
2) That the Lord and the Apostles never called upon the help of the magistrate to kill with the sword the one who deviated from the truth. Even in connection with such horrible heretics as defiled the congregation in Corinth, Paul mentions nothing of this idea. And it cannot be concluded from any particular word in the New Testament, that in the days when particular revelation should cease, that the rooting out of heretics with the sword is the obligation of magistrates.
3) That our fathers have not developed this monstrous proposition out of principle, but have taken it over from Romish practice. . . .
I do wish that Dr. Kloosterman would pay attention to the master of all worldview and world transformation and cease from using an article against 2k that no Dutch Calvinist uses (except himself and his fans).
Finally, the Dutch magistrates themselves rejected Article 36 even in the glory days of the Dutch Reformation. Here is how Philip Benedict concludes his chapter on the Dutch Reformation:
The place of the Reformed church came to assume within the seven United Provinces of the Netherlands was different from that of any other established church in Europe. On the one hand, the Reformed church was the public church. Its ministers were paid from the tithe and the proceeds of seized church property. It provided the chaplains who accompanied the republic’s armies and navies. . .
On the other hand, across the republic as a whole the Reformed enjoyed neither the numerical preponderance nor the degrees of ideological hegemony that Europe’s legally dominant churches normally exercised. For every author who likened the Dutch struggle for independence to the liberation of ancient Israel from the yoke of Egypt, another depicted the long war for independence as a battle to preserve the traditional liberties of the region against tyranny, including ecclesiastical tyranny. . . . The consistories and synods learned before long to moderate the severity of their demands for moral purity, and the measures regulating public morals generally fell far short of the strictness of those promulgated in Zurich, Geneva, and Scotland. Last of all, ecclesiastical discipline was not backed up by civil sanctions as in Geneva and Scotland. The revolutionary reformation of the Low Countries was thus revolutionary for its reconfiguration of the relation between church and state and for the degree of freedom it obtained for inhabitants of this region to live their lives outside the institution and ritual of any organized church, even while it gave birth to a Reformed church that was at once privileged and pure, an established church and a little company of the elect.
Maybe I’m finally understanding the purpose of worldview thinking. It is a way of seeing the entire globe and ignoring reality.
Old Life 
The CRC. Yes that staunch fortress of Orthodoxy.
LikeLike
Yes, Benjamin, the same early 20th c. CRC that affirmed common grace (read: providence)against those who denied it and formed the PRC.
But if you want to suggest a correlation between synodical decisions and heterodoxy you might also consider the recent PRC decision to institutionalize educational legalism (as if denying common grace and the hyper-Calvinism that begets denying the well-meant offer weren’t enough).
http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/09/prca_church_synod_votes_to_req.html
LikeLike
“Maybe I’m finally understanding the purpose of worldview thinking. It is a way of seeing the entire globe and ignoring reality.”
In media studies worldview thinking is called, framing:
framing “refers to the social construction of a social phenomenon by mass media sources or specific political or social movements or organizations. It is an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual’s perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. A frame defines the packaging of an element of rhetoric in such a way as to encourage certain interpretations and to discourage others.
Framing is so effective because it is a heuristic, or mental shortcut. According to Susan T. Fiske and Shelley E. Taylor, human beings are by nature “cognitive misersâ€, meaning they prefer to do as little thinking as possible.[4] Frames provide people a quick and easy way to process information. Hence, people will use the previously mentioned mental filters (a series of which is called a schema) to make sense of incoming messages. This gives the sender and framer of the information enormous power to use these schemas to influence how the receivers will interpret the message.[5]”
-wiki
LikeLike
Ben, yes, that staunch fortress of orthodoxy where Bret McAtee ministers.
LikeLike
Using Wiki is a mental shortcut! Anyway, if the author is right that framing is an *inevitable* process, then she’s just giving us her framing. How’d she manage to get so lucky as to escape the effects of “framing” and lecture all us poor benighted fools?
Darryl,
I don’t get it, all your followers here have affirmed that they have worldviews and that it is a straw man to claim 2kers deny worldviews (btw, remember when I quoted all your 2K heroes talking about worldviews and how all men have them?), but then you go and say things like worldview thinking has the purpose of denying reality. This is ironic, if your followers are correct, then you have a worldview, and your claim that worldview is used to deny reality is in fact a denial of reality since you, at least, don’t think your worldview is used to deny reality.
😉
LikeLike
Paul,
I don’t mean to be a benighted fool, but when we say “worldview” don’t we need to define the term? If it’s defined broadly enough, everyone has a worldview. You can narrow the definition. Dr. Phil Ryken authored a little booklet “What is the Christian Worldview” in which he had four elements: creation, fall, redemption, glory. Then you have tne neo-Calvinism worldview, which is “every square inch” (Jesus is Lord overe all creation, rejection of dualisms, all life to be redeemed, cultural mandate = Great Commission, sphere sovereignty, common grace, the antithesis, law as the order for creation establishing cultural norms, etc.)
I take it that what most posters here are arguing about is whether there is a “worldview” in the sense of the neo-Cal version as taught by Kuyper, Bavinck, Dooyeweerd, Wolters, Mouw, A. Plantinga, Woterstofff, etc. When they say “everyone has a worldview,” they mean it in the broad sense. In the broad sense, my Basset Hound has a worldview (limited to Kibbel with fish paste), but in the narrow sense, only neo-Cals have a worldview.
LikeLike
Dr. Phil Ryken authored a little booklet “What is the Christian Worldview†in which he had four elements: creation, fall, redemption, glory. Then you have tne neo-Calvinism worldview, which is “every square inch 
I’m not sure tagging the creation-fall-redemption rubric as a feature that distinguishes paleo-Calvinism from neo- helps. In Always Reformed, DVD identifies neo-Calvinism as having the following features: “the emphasis upon worldview, the creation-fall-redemption paradigm, and the drive for cultural transformation. One of its chief theological distinctives is the conviction that redemption consists in enabling Christians to take up agains the original cultural task of Adam, that is, the task of developing the potentialities of creation and perhaps even building the stuff of the world-to-come, the new heavens and new earth…”
I think C-F-D is a rubric that paleo can use, but it means something entirely different from neo. In paleo, it means that sin is an abiding condition, the inter-advental state is semi-eschatelogical, and the cross signifies the reconciliation of sinners to God and they wait patiently for his return to redeem all things by his hand alone. In neo, it means that sin is a sickness and the cross is more a kick-off to redeeming creation right now.
Of course, DVD’s point in the chapter is to show how neo-Calvinism, despite its noble intentions to give creation essential affirmation and practical meaning, actually has the unintended and ignoble effect of undermining the only institution Jesus ordained in during his earthly ministry. Paleo is much more ecclesiastical, neo less so, thus:
“…If this is what redemption is, it is quite logical to conclude that the church is important for the Christian life but not precisely where the main action lies. The main action is in fulfilling the original creation mandate in the various spheres of human culture.”
So, Paul, I’ll say it again: 2k isn’t about denying worldviews. It’s about denying that this or that worldview is heaven’s view, which is to say it’s about restraint, as in speaking on behalf of God where he has forbidden it, as in Dt. 29:29 and Belgic 13. Yes, to say all this is to betray what could be called a “worldview.” So what? You seem to think you have paleo-2k on the horns of a dilemma. But like I suggested to you that you might do well to just admit that some measure of social gospel is good instead of complaining when something social gospel-y is called social gospel, I’m admitting there is such a thing as a worldview. But it’s a paleo one, not a neo one. WHy is this so hard?
LikeLike
CVD,
Yes, I have been asking for a definition of ‘worldview’ for quite some time and have not received it. At best I’ve got the even more unhelpful answers such as “by worldview we deny this or that worldview is heaven’s view.” Then, you have Hart telling me flat-out that he “has no worldview.”
Now, apart from the joke that your dog as a worldview (since dog’s don’t have beliefs—positive cognitive attitudes towards proposition—they don’t have worldviews), I mean it in the broad sense, but the interesting point that is relevant for conversations here is whether the Bible and Confession entails propositions that are about “non-Church/theology” matters, i.e., epistemology, metaphysics, law, science, math, etc. Does Christianity have interesting and relevant and important things to say in those matters? I believe that it does:
http://aporeticchristianity.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/christian-minimalist-and-maximalist/
Now, considering myself something of a Plantinga buff, I’d be interested in what he means by worldview and how that is denied by Hart &c. I can’t see how posters here could deny it ini his sense, but I bet dollars to donuts that none here has read (and I mean read) A. Plantinga.
Now, Darryl &c have a worldview in the narrow sense, they just disagree with the so-called neo-Cals. In fact, it is such a simple and obvious truth that they must believe the Bible and the Confession have implications for much more then they want to give it credit for. If they reflected on some simple truths they’d see how it follows: Propositions entail other propositions. The proposition, Dogs have four legs, entails a bunch of other propositions, many not even about dogs. Now, how many propositions are in the Bible and the Confession. Hundreds of thousands. It is simply nonsense to walk around believing that the Bible and the Confession don’t entail a whole host of propositions about matters other than salvation and the proper subjects of baptism.
I gave examples earlier. Darryl’s Confession entails propositions about quantum physics, neuroscience, and the metaphysics of free will (which touch on issues relating to law and moral responsibility and punishment). Darryl may like to deny it but his Confession, for example, requires him to disagree with the best neuroscientists in the world in their interpretation of the data from neuroscience wich they say shows the mind just is the brain, or a feature of it. All their book larnin’ and graphs and empirical data don’t support what they say it does, if Darryl’s confession is true. I could go on and on.
Zrim is as cryptic as always. So Zrim, I’ll say it again: your comments are unhelpful and not even dialectically relevant. As I say: 2+2 will still equal 4 in heaven and your soul will not be identical to your body (or brain) in heaven. Quantum indeterminism will still be untrue in heaven. Now, of course NO hated worldviewite would say that they are commenting on what God has kept silent. They believe that they have revelation for their assertions. So you simply, again, can’t help but beg the question at hand. You don’t have a disagreement with them in form, you have a material disagreement, a fact which totally undercuts your entire argument.
LikeLike
Just as an aside I I am not Bret McAtee. Just to clear things up.
Also as another aside the 1920’s CRC Synod erred in what they codified to be “common grace” as does the PRCA. Not sure what the PRCA’s foibles have to do with this.
LikeLike
Paul, if the confessions require one to disagree with some of the best neuroscientists in the world that we are only the sum of our parts (quite agreed) then why can’t we disagree with some of the best neo-Calvinists in the church that the main action is in fulfilling the original creation mandate in the various spheres of human culture instead of around the unadulterated Word and sacrament? (Talk about undercutting arguments.) I find a whole lot more in the confessions about the latter than the former.
Now, of course NO hated worldviewite would say that they are commenting on what God has kept silent.
Really? You mean like how “Reformed intellectuals frequently assert that Christ’s kingdom penetrates every legitimate social institution, and ordinary Reformed people found goat-breeding societies on a ‘Reformed basis’ and wrestle with how to develop college football programs in accordance with a Reformed world and life view†(DVD, NL2K, page 4) Pray tell, Paul, where has God specially revealed how to breed goats and develop college football programs?
LikeLike
Also as another aside the 1920′s CRC Synod erred in what they codified to be “common grace†as does the PRCA. Not sure what the PRCA’s foibles have to do with this.
Benjamin, the same thing impugning a synodical decision because of its denominational proximity instead of its reasoning does. That’s not to defend the CRC. It’s to say that if you disdain the hobbling of the theocratic strain of American revisions (Belgic 36, WCF 23.3) in favor of 2k then just say so, no need to sneer. But you do understand that the PCA and OPC still receive the 2k revisions of 1787-88, right? Are you saying these are also not staunch bastions of orthodoxy?
LikeLike
Zrim,
The problem is that Darryl’s been denying this stuff. If you guys would just admit that Christianity has stuff to say to epistemology, neuroscience, quantum physics, etc., much ground would be advanced for your side. But you gusy frequently phrase matters in such “radical”, hyperbolic terms that you create trouble for yourself where there shouldn’t be any. You’re simply the mirror opposite of the other radicals who claim the Bible speaks to more than it does.
Your second paragraph is simply failing to enagage the other side. Yes, they believe that there are principles that by good and necessary inference entail the kinds of projects they engage in. The are wrong, of course, but the thing is that they agree with you that they should be silent where God has been silent. I’ve read DVD too, so I know the goat-breeding and football comments he made in a footnote, but they’re extreme. Even though you’re picking on low hanging fruit again, yes, they believe God has spoken to those areas, though not explicitly, of course. So, your point only has whatever force you think it does by claiming that we need explicit verses. Moreover, I don’t think God has revealed any such thing nor can an inference to those things be made. But you’re forgetting the dialectically relevant point: they *think* God has. They do not think that they are peering into the secret things of God. And, as far as Reformed football games, let’s Remember R.S. Clark who said that the Bible speaks to football games! LOL
Again, then, you don’t have a debate with them over form, but over matter. As you’re admitting above about God speaking to neuroscience and quantum physics (and I’ll get you to admit to a whole host of other matters), you act like a worldviewer here. The same reasoning you use they use. You’re just disagreeing about what matters, or how specifically those matters are addressed and to what detail, the Bible and Confessions have something interesting and relevant to say. If you could see this you’d make huge gains in persauding others—which is, I hope, a goal you have in all this, not simply to stay within your ghetto and use ghetto language that only you and three others understand.
LikeLike
Paul, I don’t have a Christian worldview. I have Christian liberty.
Here’s an illustration why: the Bible says a lot about idolatry, way more than about neuroscience. You’d think then that the Bible’s statements on idolatry would lead Paul to tell the Corinthians that they should avoid meat offered to idols. But he doesn’t. He says that the gospel gives them liberty.
This is what you can’t quite seem to fathom, that Christians may look at neuroscience differently because of the Bible’s silence on neuroscience. Of course, not all worldviewers are theonomically oriented. There is a wishy-washy variety that allows a thousand Christian worldviews to blossom. But at that point what’s the point of having a Christian worldview if it isn’t normative.
So Paul, which is it? Are you a hegemonic worldviewer or a libertarian worldviewer? Either way, you’re welcome in the Christian church because worldview is not required by Scripture of the confession.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I understand you have Christian Liberty: even those with Christian worldviews have them.
But I’ll say it again: Darryl, you hold to Biblical/Confessional propositions that entail other propositions about epistemological, metaphysical, scientific, ethical and legal matters. To the extent that the Bible or your Confession entails propositions on those matters, you have a Christian/Confessional worldview. Moreover, since you believe the Bible and the Confession is true, then you must believe the entailed propositions must be true, and that’s just an analytic fact.
To your illustration: here’s what you can’t grasp: you are ambiguous between explicit and implicit propositions of the Bible. So, when you say, “the Bible says X about Y”, that could be meant explicitly or implicitly. So, you have no way of knowing that the Bible “says” (in the demarcated sense above) more or less about idolatry than neuroscience.
Moreover, it’s not about quantity, it’s about *quality*. I will grant you that there are truths *qualitatively* more important than what the Bible says about neuroscience. And I have never denied that. In fact, most worldviewers I’m aware of do not doubt it. But here’s the rub: since the Bible *does indeed* either explicitly or implicitly say some important and relevant things to matters like philosophy, law, and science, you should hold those beliefs about those matters. It should inform your thought about those matters. And, because they are true, they should be believed. Moreover, are you commiting idoltry in your epistemic life? How would you know? Do you strive to foster epistemological virtues? What are they? I could go on.
Really, at the end of the day, your rabbit trails and red herrings are irrelevant. Does or does not the Bible and your Confession imply propositions about sundry matters other than getting saved and idolatry and the hypostatic union? You either affirm this or deny it. So far you have denied it when you have denied that there is any such thing, at all, as a Biblical epistemology. You have denied it when you have mocked “worldviewers” for sticking their noses in matters they are not experts on when your own Confession demands you stick your nose into the findings of the quantum physicists.
So Darryl, which is it, do you deny that the Bible has some things to say to epistemology, science, math, metaphyscis, physics, law, etc., or do you affirm it?
LikeLike
Paul, what is the point of this? Are you saying that I “should” affirm that the Bible has things to say about the arts and sciences? (You mention a lot of shoulds which likely puts you on the theonomic side of worldviewism.) Or are you saying that I should have a specifically biblical view of math? It’s one thing to say the Bible speaks to math. It’s another to say that the Bible underwrites the base-10 system.
It seems that you want me to affirm worldview but the contents are of that worldview are unimportant.
But I doubt that is how you’d construe it and I suspect that your should regarding my worldview is going to lead to a should about the base-10 system.
That’s why I punt on the whole worldview matter and leave it to Hegel and Kant to figure it out.
LikeLike
Paul,
A couple of thoughts here – first, to a great extent I have no urge to begrudge you on some of the points you make about worldview, since worldview is elastic enough of a term to ensure that depending on how it is defined everyone has one. I think that the main issue with worldview here is the sense that there is a definitive Christian or even Reformed Confessional worldview. A lot of this stems from the fact that faith and belief (confessionally informed) might touch a great many issues we come across as we live our lives. however faith and scripture aren’t the only input into anyone’s worldview, and I would argue that developmental, educational, vocational, technological, and cultural inputs probably occupy more space in our worldviews than the Westminster Standards do, and the Bible doesn’t really give many definitive statements to a good deal of these extra-confessional inputs. That is why I am less inclined to say that there is such a thing as a definitive confessional worldview, even if the confessions should shape how we might approach some non-confessional issues.
So while stances on evidences of the big-bang from the WMAP, or evolution, or abortion and euthanasia might create space for some confessional considerations that we have to make, there are so many worldview positions we take that aren’t confessional at all that makes it hard to say that there is a discernible confessional worldview out there. I would be inclined to agree that the confessions might inform our worldviews, but they don’t comprehensively comprise or define our worldview.
Obviously we are to submit to scripture and to believe what is true, but it seems that while we have achieved relative stability on what we believe comprises true doctrine, we haven’t achieved stability about what is true in the world around us. If we must believe what is true in the areas not specifically spoken to in scripture as a matter of Christian duty we run into some practical trouble. What is true in science, medicine, economics, philosophy will change and develop and so we might have an idea of what is true in these various disciplines, but truth for these disciplines isn’t always stable so we might think that what medicine asserts is true until that is exposed as false. Should Christians be held liable for faulty views on science and medicine, or even philosophy (which is admittedly a little trickier than the former disciplines) simply because it is what their culture understood to be true? So while Scripture might inferentially have a great deal to say about thoroughgoing Darwinism, it still doesn’t hold out a complete worldview to us.
So, whether one affirms or denies that the Scriptures have anything to say about epistemology, science or math, there hasn’t been a real assault on what it is that God requires us to believe. I know that you aren’t advocating worldview extremism here, but I do wonder that even if Dr. Hart conceded to some of your points about what the Bible speaks to, if there has been anything yet debated that mandates the formulation of a Confessional worldview, or any other kind of worldview. It makes me wonder what point it is that you are really trying to get at here – and I honestly mean that and don’t intend offense in asking. Are we supposed to fold worldview language into 2k theology? Are we to call for worldview formation for all Reformed Christians? Because if the answers to these questions are yes (which they might not be) then we will have to locate whose Reformed world and life views we are going to employ.
LikeLike
Darryl,
You would do well, among other things, to learn the distinction between ethical and rational “shoulds.” Example: Id you believe p, and p implies q, then you “should” believe q. I didn’t know that simple point most non-Christians even agree on was “theonomic.” Besides, you believe in Natural Law, which gives us “shoulds” (ethical ones), and apparently doesn’t do so theonomically.
I notice you didn’t answer my question. That’s fine. I understand why.
I want you to *consistently* affirm worldview, if you want to deny what you can’t get away from doing, then be my guest. But that’s just intellectual dishonesty. I also think you should admit, as I have shown and as has not been defeated, that the Bible/Confession affirms *some* contents regarding those matters. However, that’s not to say “every jot and tittle.” You don’t need to make the opposite error as the “worldviewists,” what I call Christian-worldview-maximalists, you rail against make. The options are not just “all” and “none.” There’s “some.”
My “should” does not lead to base-10 math, and you would know this if you had read what I linked above:
http://aporeticchristianity.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/christian-minimalist-and-maximalist/
And I have no idea why you would “suspect” this. I have said nothing that could rationally lead you to believe this. You can’t draw that implication from anything I have said here. In fact, you’d have to draw the opposite conclusion.
So, keep saying that the Bible doesn’t say a word to epistemology, math, science, law, ethics, etc., but you’re only fooling yourself. Or, you can take your foot off the pedal and admit that the Bible does speak to those things, and to the extent it does, there’s “a Christian view” on those things.
LikeLike
Jed,
Right, I have no point. Sorry for bothering you guys, again. Hart can go on to claim that there is no such thing as biblical epistemology, and that the Bible doesn’t have anything whatever to say to matters outside salvation. I could spend time discussing your strange Cartesianism and infallibilist constraint on knowledge such that because it is possible that somethings might be in error, we can’t claim they are true or that we know them. Pretty much all non-Christian thinkers today deny this. If we want to play that game, there are TONS of Confessional/Biblical views we hold that “might” be wrong. So your point is self-refuting. You’re in an epistemic nightmare. I could waste my time pointing out that I haven’t said the Bible/Confession gives us a “complete” or “definitive” worldview.
LikeLike
. . . . but why bother.
LikeLike
Yes, using wiki is a mental shortcut, but it is at times a good place to introduce people to new terms.
Peace to you Paul.
LikeLike
Paul –
What specifically do the Reformed confessions say about quantum physics?
[and whilst we are snarking on the topic of wikipedia – I’ve met a number of fairly eminent philosophers, all of whom are able to explain what they mean simply in terms the average person can understand. Not so you chaps from triablogue – for whom philosophy functions as a sort of mental ju-jitsu]
LikeLike
Rana, it was in jest. She said worldview thinking was a mental shortcut. So what was sause for the goose was sauce for the gander. The real point was that what she said was completely irrelevant to the discussion, unless straw men are now considered intellectually virtuous and apropos. Besides that, her claims were uncautious and led to self-referential incoherency. But that’s what happens when people try to play philosopher.
LikeLike
Christ E,
I don’t blog at Triablogue. And, your claims are self-refuting. If no one can understand my posts, then why are they taking issue with it? Are you saying Hart &c are responding to points they don’t understand? If average persons can understand what I’ve written, then what point were you trying to make? 🙂
Anyway, we’ve discussed this before: check out the Confession, chs. 3 and 5, and then read up on quantum indeterminacy. The majority of physicists hold this is ontological, and they believe they have very good reasons for holding this. Thus, you must either deny the majority consensus, or claim the Confession doesn’t really mean “all” things and admit some ignorance for God—-because ontologically indeterminate quanta are by definition unknowable. But them problem here is that if you make the move that God controls all things only at the macro level, chaos theory could be exploited to bring the indeterminacy to the macro level, see John C. Beckman, “Quantum Mechanics, Chaos Physics and the Open View of God,†Philosophia Christi 4 #1: 2002, 203-213.
As to the numbers, John Byl, who recently spoke on this subject at Oxford, recently gave me some dated numbers—they’ve gone up since his dates—regarding the split between physicists who hold that the indeterminacy is merely epistemic or if it is ontic (and, doh!, he used Wiki):
Many quantum specialists opt for the “Many Worlds Interpretation”, where each observation results in multiple deterministic universes.
See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds):
“Many-worlds”-like interpretations are now considered fairly mainstream within the quantum physics community. For example, a poll of 72 leading physicists conducted by the American researcher David Raub in 1995 and published in the French periodical Sciences et Avenir in January 1998 recorded that nearly 60% thought that the many-worlds interpretation was “true”. Max Tegmark also reports the result of a poll taken at a 1997 quantum mechanics workshop.[67] According to Tegmark, “The many worlds interpretation (MWI) scored second, comfortably ahead of the consistent histories and Bohm interpretations.”
I sure hope I was clear and you could understand me.
LikeLike
If you guys would just admit that Christianity has stuff to say to epistemology, neuroscience, quantum physics, etc., much ground would be advanced for your side…And, as far as Reformed football games, let’s Remember R.S. Clark who said that the Bible speaks to football games.
Paul, ok, so now we’re back to this whole “Scripture doesn’t speak of football but it speaks to football…gotch’ya!” But I’m not keen on the to-but-not-of-insert-earthly-task-here formulation, truth be told. I think it is much more precise to say that Scripture speaks to people who do neuroscience, quantum physics, shepherds and football. It simply cannot speak to that which doesn’t retain the imago Dei. It speaks neither of nor to the projects of the imago Dei. It can only speak of and to the people who do these things. Ok, obviously more of shepherds than footballers, but you get the point.
This is why I think we can say that while there is no such thing as Christian football, education, manufacturing, medicine, or politics there is such a thing as Christians who do these things. The mistake is when they think that just because they do them as indwelt people that they have now created a redemptive version of the creational task they do just like those who are not indwelt.
LikeLike
Paul, you’ve mentioned QM before. What are your actual qualifications on the subject? Last we discussed it, you cited a Scientific American article and a couple of metaphysicists … which is fine, except that what you wrote is different from what my actual QM textbooks have to say.
The issue at play is whether science can actually say anything definitive about something metaphysical … say, God.
Saying “Indeterminacy is ontic” may be fine and all with respect to physical causes — which is what QM typically restricts itself to — but it doesn’t solve the very different question about metaphysical causes.
That is: Indeterminacy may well be “ontic” with respect to physical causes — which is indeed the position that the vast majority of QM practitioners take — and yet nothing be said about God’s role in the matter.
Or in short: since God does not regularly exchange photons with matter, QM is neither here nor there to Him.
LikeLike
Paul,
I don’t know that she nor I were trying to play philosopher, perhaps it is you who is trying to play philosopher.
And framing is totally relevant to worldview ideology, as is the term filter, even a loser non-philosopher person like myself can see that.
Everyday I read the same news stories but framed in various forms with specific trigger terms and issues used as filters to form a worldview specific to the demographics of the writer’s target reader.
Peace to the philosopher, and down with anyone who just wants to play philosopher!
LikeLike
Zrim: But I’m not keen on the to-but-not-of-insert-earthly-task-here formulation, truth be told. I think it is much more precise to say that Scripture speaks to people who do neuroscience, quantum physics, shepherds and football. It simply cannot speak to that which doesn’t retain the imago Dei.
I still don’t get this.
You and DGH aren’t keen on “to-but-not-of”, because it appears to you to be misleading equivocation. OK.
But then I ask, “Doesn’t Scripture tell us to, for example, glorify God in all that you do?”
And you say “Yes.”
JRC: Isn’t Quantum Mechanics something that one does?
Zrim: Yes.
JRC: So the Scripture says that we are to glorify God while engaging in QM?
Zrim: Yes.
JRC: So by good and necessary inference, the Scripture tells us to glorify God in our Quantum Mechanicing?
Zrim: Yes
JRC: So Scripture puts a condition on the way in which we engage in QM?
Zrim: Yes.
JRC: So Scripture speaks to Quantum Mechanics?
Zrim: No.
To me, this seems amazingly obtuse (from a pair of people who are not exactly obtuse). Put it this way: if we had the preceding conversation in the courtroom, I don’t think I’d find it hard to make the jury distrust you.
DGH says this is because he can tell the difference between verbs and adverbs, and I can’t. This from the man who passed Hebrew by memorizing the English translation of Ruth. bad-a-bump.
Last I checked, “glorify God” was a perfectly good verbal phrase.
To me, this whole “doesn’t speak to” looks like — not saying *is* mind, but looks like — an attempt to deny the obvious: that “all that you do” covers *every* verb.
LikeLike
Jeff, um, since I said that there is not 100% agreement, pointing out some physicists who disagree with other physicists is rather uninteresting. Indeed, it’s empirically predicted by my very language. You keep trying to *resolve* the matter, showing the two can be consistent. But here’s the problem, I am speaking about the majority of quantum physicists. This is simply a nose counting problem, I don;t need to know anything about quantum physics to be able to count noses and see what the majority are saying: and that is that the indeterminacy is ontic. This is also why hundreds of Christians physicists, Barbour, Polkinghorn, as well as other scientists, e.g., F. Collins, hold that quantum indeterminacy operates at the ontic level, it supports their views on the openness of God, libertarian free will, etc. Look, it seems fairly obvious that quantum indeterminacy at the ontological level presents a problem: Reformed theology has typically argued that if man is libertarianly free, then since man’s future choices are metaphysically indeterminate, God cannot know them. We argue that Open Theism is the logical consequence of Arminianism, for example. It is well known that libertarian free will theorists—-christian and non—are pointing to the evidence for quantum indeterminacy to show that determinism is false. So, you can say that the majority of quantum physicists are wrong, but this is to make my point! That’s my argument. You *have to* claim that those who hold to quantum indeterminacy at the ontological level are wrong. You *have to* claim that the top Christian physicists are *wrong*, and this because your Confession demands it. I have done quite a bit of reading in this area and frankly you’re simply uninformed. I don’t mean that to be an offense, but so far all you’ve done is to *say* that I am wrong. That’s not convincing.
Rana,
Got ya. It’s relevant. Worldviewism is social constructivism, just like she says. Thanks.
LikeLike
Zrim, I gave my argument as to how the Confession speaks to quantum mechanics, not those who do quantum mechanics. You can’t defeat the reasons offered by simply denying my conclusion.
LikeLike
Paul, I’m not convinced that you’ve understood what I’ve said. And I have to say, for you to declare me “uninformed’ on QM is uncareful and rude.
As I said above, I cheerfully agree that QI is “ontic” at the level of physical causes. Since you have “done a lot of reading in the area”, then you’re probably familiar with EPR and the Bell experiments that show that hidden variables likely do not exist.
But what you may not have noticed in your reading is that QI is tied to particular theories of measurement. And that QM, in general, speaks of what is *measurable*, not of particular metaphysical entities that are unmeasurable. Or as Feynman is supposed to have said, “Shut up and calculate.”
All of which is to say: QI has nothing whatsoever to say about metaphysical causes. I’ve not encountered anything of the sort in my own reading, which includes the mainstream sources: Bohm, Feynman, Deutsch, others.
Saying that “God is in control of wavefunctions” (which I hold to be true) and “Wavefunctions are non-deterministic” is entirely consistent, and contradicts nothing in the mainstream of QM theory.
God is not a “hidden variable.”
—
BTW, I think this discussion gives Zrim at least a modicum of credibility. While you and I agree that God is in control of all (per the Confession), we disagree concerning the details. That suggests at least that Christian liberty ought to be taken seriously and broadly, even if not in the “2k” sense.
LikeLike
Jeff, look at it this way: you know, or should, that the subject is debated. There are physicists who hold to ontological indeterminism, which claims that quanta only have probabilities attached to them and therefore cannot be known with certainty by definition. There are others who hold that it is only epistemic, they appeal to hidden variables to save determinism about the quanta.
Now, given this situation, which you should grant, it is very easy to see the debate raging on and finally the vast majority of scientists taking one of the sides. My point is that traditional interpretations of the Confession *rule out* one of the answers from the start. This means the Confession requires one to take a side in this debate, declaring that one of the sides just cannot be correct. Indeed, a garbage man with only a high school diploma, having zero science training whatsoever, but who is a Confessionalist, must take a side on a debate he has zero expertise in whatsoever.
What I have said is completely unobjectionable, I think, and should suffice to make my point. And frankly, I don’t have a clue at why you’re pressing this. Don’t you agree with me that the Bible says more to life than darryl thinks? Don’t you agree that the Bible has implications for many fields of inquiry? Surely you don’t think the question of the historical Adam is “open” do you? But I would say that well over 99% of all scientists believe Adam cannot be historical. So again we have garbage men telling highly trained scientists are wrong and that their findings, or at least their interpretations of their findings, are wrong.
I’m actually dumbfounded that anyone here is disagreeing with me on what I take to be pretty obvious and basic points.
LikeLike
Jeff, this discussion gives Zrim no credibility because I have been saying that very thing! I have linked to a blog post of mine twice now that says that very thing! And in the last discussion you and I were in on, I said that very thing!
I understand there are people who hold different views. so, you cite Bohm (and other guys writing quite some time ago, I might add!). But for what? Of course he says what you need him to because he’s trying to resolve determinism and QM! The very fact that he’s trying to show a resolution shows that there’s a debate!
Anyway, see here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#QuaMec
and here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/#4
Again, I understand full well that you are claiming that a *certain interpretation* of QM is needed for the resolution, but don’t you see, Jeff, that this is *just my point*! But it is uninformed (sorry) to claim that “no one” makes the claims I am making. I pointed you to a journal article above, I pointed out John Byl who spoke at Oxford on the very subject, and I cited Polkinghorn and Barbour and Collions to that effect. Is is arrogant to claim you know more about physics than those guys. How come they claim the evidence supports and open view of God’s knowledge and libertarian free will?
LikeLike
Jeff, I posted something with two links in it an it’s awaiting moderation. wait for it.
LikeLike
Paul, I can agree with you that the Confession does require us to take sides at certain lines. And you and I agree that if a scientist were to say, “QI, therefore no Providence”, then we would have to disagree with him. Ditto with “Evolution, therefore no Adam.”
My only point is that the lines are not always where we think they are.
Here, you’ve drawn a line in the sand: Providence, therefore no QI.
A closer reading of the sources — the scientists, mind, not the philosophers — shows that QI doesn’t speak to non-measurables. QI denies determinacy, which has a specific definition: The future state of the particle is determined by its past and current state. This says nothing of Providence, which is indeterminate by its very nature (else, God would be less than omnipotent, right?). God is not a state.
And thus, the line that you draw is too thick. It ought to read:
Providence, therefore no interpretations of QI that rule out Providence.
And very few interpretations of QI (none that I’ve seen!) actually do so. Scientists tend to shy away from dogmatic assertions about God — with the notable exceptions of Dawkins and Hawking.
—
Some philosophers are excited about QI as a portal to free-will. They’re welcome to think on these things, but I don’t think they want the kind of free-will that QI has to offer. Imagine if your brain chooses beliefs at random.
LikeLike
Paul,
If the aim of your response was to offend, congratulations. It’s the same tired bullying tactics when you are posed with a question you don’t care to answer or when someone dares to question your perspective: pulling rank and name-calling. I am not sure how you can justify speaking to a brother the way you do Paul, but your insults are grievous. I raised some issues in good faith, and you read it as some kind of insult and dealt with none of the issues raised. Are you saying that psychology and human development, technology, culture, socio-economic status have no bearing on worldviews? Or since these are not Confessional or biblical matters are they irrelevant? I am not interested in philosophy like you are Paul, I claim no expertise in the area (or any other for that matter) this doesn’t make me stupid. But, so what if I am unversed in philosophy, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that the fundamental concerns of scripture are doctrinal and not philosophical. However, you tout worldview in such a way that the Christian should have some sort of account for what the Bible has to say to law, quantum physics, and medicine:
‘But here’s the rub: since the Bible *does indeed* either explicitly or implicitly say some important and relevant things to matters like philosophy, law, and science, you should hold those beliefs about those matters. It should inform your thought about those matters. And, because they are true, they should be believed. Moreover, are you committing idolatry in your epistemic life? How would you know? Do you strive to foster epistemological virtues? What are they? I could go on.”
Idolatry in epistemic life – is that something that someone can be brought up for church discipline for? The problem with this is most people are simple, and I am happy to include myself among these, and these have no use for figuring out what the Bible says about quantum physics. As I read my Bible, St. Paul is chiefly concerned with the Crucified Christ, and the only ideas that the apostles were intent on confronting were the ones that perverted the gospel, not the passing ideas of the day. As it pertained to the church he was intent that believers would know who God is through knowing Christ, know how we are made right with God; know what marks God demanded of the church, and know how to live faithfully in a hostile world. Treatises on jurisprudence, science, and all of the issues that you have lionized in this discussion are conspicuously absent from the biblical record. If Scripture has anything to say to these at all, they are inferential at best, and they are not the fundamental concerns of Scripture. You are plenty intelligent to know this, that is why it is beyond me as to why you are going to such great lengths to make such an issue of these as if they somehow pertain at all to the church being the church, or believers being faithful. Last time I checked most of us here don’t deny the existence of worldviews, but we don’t place the same stock in them as you do, and we aren’t convinced by your arguments that we should be more concerned with developing a “Confessional Worldview”. So at the end of the day you can walk away believing that you have won the argument, but I don’t see you convincing anybody no matter how much you attempt to cajole and intimidate us to concede to you.
LikeLike
I will qualify one of my statements:
However, you tout worldview in such a way that the Christian should have some sort of account for what the Bible has to say to law, quantum physics, and medicine”
The only obligation we have to take any sort of position on these are when these disciplines assert something that clearly contradicts Scripture directly or by good and necessary consequence. So when science says there was a Big Bang, therefore God did not create or doesn’t exist; or when Roman Law insists Caesar is Lord; or when medicine asserts there is no such thing as an immaterial soul, we ought to be able to say that we believe this is false since it contradicts scripture. Some might be called to make more detailed arguments as to why these might be false, however it is a stretch to say all or even most Christians are called to this.
LikeLike
Jeff, so if the Bible says we are to glorify God in all that we do, and that is the green light for the Bible speaking to plumbing, because plumbing is something we do (actually, I never plumb), then does that mean that when the Bible says God loves the world, then the Bible speaks of univeralism? I suspect you qualify your “alls” and “worlds” when it comes to soteriology. So why not qualify it on the doctrine of Scripture.
BTW, I note your objection to the distinction between adverbs and verbs, but I still don’t think you have addressed the difference. Honest is not a verb. The Bible does not say how to fix a pipe. It only tells me to glorify God when I fix a pipe. (It doesn’t even say how to do this, which is a pretty hard thing to fathom when you think about it.)
And remember, you’re the guy who said a Christian school of plumbing is plausible. The next I know you’ll be quoting Dr. K. favorably.
LikeLike
Great discussion as always.
Last night my wife and I were in the car listening to a BBC show. The journalist was traveling around Kentucky reporting on the Tea Party. It’s always interesting and worthwhile to hear news outside the United States deal with our domestic issues.
Many of the people he talked to kept throwing around the word we know so well…Biblical.
It was the Biblical view of economics, Biblical view of politics, Biblical view of society, of the founders etc….etc….
But I don’t think any of the speakers had really thought it through, because many of the things they were saying struck me as profoundly un-biblical. Americanist, Republican, Militarist, Constantinian, Smithian (as in Adam)…but Biblical? I think people need to be a little bit more careful in how they’re using that word. In every case it’s supposition built on supposition, quite a house of cards. We can talk about different points of view if we acknowledge that perhaps the Bible doesn’t specifically address many of these topics in a Common Grace context, but you throw that adjective in front of your argument and the discussion is over. Now we’re engaged in a moral struggle, a battle for orthodoxy.
Yes, ‘Biblical Christianity’ has supported many wars. ‘Biblical’ Christianity has given us the modern anti-Christian state of The Netherlands. ‘Biblical’ Christianity also brought us Apartheid South Africa.
It amazes how the Kuyperian worldview schema has come to dominate American Evangelicalism. They don’t know who Kuyper is of course, and perhaps it could be argued they don’t really understand his theology…thankfully.
But they’ve sure learned about the importance of an integrated worldview. So now they just throw the world Biblical in front of whatever they want to push. It’s interesting how they’re ‘Biblical’ view of historiography works out. Somehow lies and deception have become Biblical.
Our worldview is supposed to be Kingdom oriented and thus in application it is a Pilgrim worldview. I’m not sure how Kuyperianism can be said to teach that we are strangers and pilgrims on the earth. Article 36 seems to teach the Church to make itself right at home, build the castle and defend it.
LikeLike
Paul,
So based on the Confession, you’ve demanded quantum determinacy, and thus mandate Einstein’s “spooky actions from a distance” from good and necessary consequence of Scripture? I’m thus conscience-bound to believe that a particle in Boston can instantaneously set off a detector on the far side of the moon? So you would discipline a Christian who sympathized with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics?
By the way, I studied under professors interested in the interpretation of quantum mechanics at two top-tiered universities. Not trying to boast, but I think I do know something about the field. I think I know a bit about reformed theology too.
May I suggest that this demonstrates an inadequate (indeed rationalist) understanding of the Creator-creature distinction? Aren’t you creating univocal intersection between God’s archetypal knowledge and our ectypal knowledge? Aren’t God’s thoughts and ways above ours? If this is characteristic of how you apply the Bible to all of life, I think you’ve just won the case for Dr. Hart.
LikeLike
Jed: The only obligation we have to take any sort of position on these are when these disciplines assert something that clearly contradicts Scripture directly or by good and necessary consequence. So when science says there was a Big Bang, therefore God did not create or doesn’t exist … we ought to be able to say that we believe this is false since it contradicts scripture.
As far as I’m concerned, I’m content to leave “the Bible speaks to X” at precisely this place. That which contradicts Scripture is out; all else is a matter of liberty.
It’s a very limited kind of “speaking to” that I have in mind.
DGH: Jeff, so if the Bible says we are to glorify God in all that we do, and that is the green light for the Bible speaking to plumbing, because plumbing is something we do (actually, I never plumb), then does that mean that when the Bible says God loves the world, then the Bible speaks of univeralism? I suspect you qualify your “alls†and “worlds†when it comes to soteriology. So why not qualify it on the doctrine of Scripture.
I do qualify. This “green light” notion is foreign to me. See above.
DGH: The Bible does not say how to fix a pipe. It only tells me to glorify God when I fix a pipe. (It doesn’t even say how to do this, which is a pretty hard thing to fathom when you think about it.)
Ding. Ding. Ding.
Two things are striking here:
(1) We agree that the Bible gives neither detailed instructions NOR general guidance about pipes.
(2) We agree that the Bible tells us *to* glorify God without telling us *how* to glorify God.
This point (2) is precisely what you’ve been missing (IMNSHO) this whole time: the Bible lays out certain goals without specifying the details, the implementation of those goals. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
There’s absolutely nothing inconsistent or misleading about saying both that the Bible speaks to plumbing (“glorify God in one’s plumbing”) and that it does not give us detailed instruction as to how to do so.
Slogan: “Speaking to” is not specifying.
If you can get that, then you’ve got the burden of my posting.
LikeLike
DGH: Honest is not a verb.
“Do not bear false witness” and “speak the truth” is what Scripture actually says …
Look, if you want me to see the error of my ways, this is probably not the avenue that will be helpful. The nitpicking over verbs and adverbs looks more like a language game than a real distinction. Verbs can be converted to adverbs by means of participles; and adverbs place conditions on (and therefore “speak to”) verbs.
LikeLike
So you would discipline a Christian who sympathized with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics?
I might discipline a Christian who attempted a rigorous test of the Schrodinger’s Cat experiment. Just kidding.
LikeLike
As someone with a PhD in quantum physics, I can confidently say that most of us couldn’t care less whether or not quantum indeterminacy operates on an ontic level. We’re much more interested in predicting and modeling measurable phenomena. From that perspective, I can confidently say that Scripture says almost nothing that shapes how a quantum physicist goes about the work of observing and understanding natural phenomena.
Lastly, I find DGH’s analysis above to be helpful. If worldviewism is so wishy-washy that many aspects of one’s “singular Christian worldview” are not normative, then I don’t see its value. You have to rely on something to sort out the differences. Thus, you either end up relying on force (i.e., might makes right) or on some form of natural-law reasoning. So, I don’t think that many of us here are concerned about that kind of worldviewism. Rather, we are concerned about the type advocated by folks like Kloosterman, Olasky, etc., who would have the church bind the conscience of believers on the manner and form of their interactions with the broader culture. I can agree that being a Christian shapes how I view the world and the culture. But, in most respects, I have no desire to exalt the particulars of my “worldview” to be tests of Christian orthodoxy. I have no interest in specifying how a Christian MUST plumb, or how a Christian MUST do quantum physics.
LikeLike
Jeff (note I still have a comment in moderation):
Here, you’ve drawn a line in the sand: Providence, therefore no QI.
No, I haven’t, and this is what’s frustrating about this place. I have drawn a line in the sane between providence and certain interpretations of QI. Why is this so hard to grasp (and not just for you)?
It is an undeniable fact that many quantum physicists view the evidence of QI in the way I’ve expressed above. This does not mean (a) that all physicists do, or that (b) those who do are right. But it is simply not debatable that I have presented one interpretation of the QM evidence.
Look, it should be easy for you to admit your error here. If what you (and Bob and Darren) say is true, that why the heck is Oxford hosting conferences on the very topic you guys implies no one believes??? Your guys’ explanation lacks explanatory value: you can’t explain why physicists are philosophers of physics (who need to understand the field, btw) are arguing this very topic. Why on earth was John Byl at the “God and Physics Conference” sponsored by the Ian Ramsey Centre for science and religion?? Explain the existence of this conference! Polkinghorn, Barbour, and about 100 others were there, physicists and philosophers, and they debated the very topic apparently no one holds or finds important. Explain how on earth Byl could present a paper in response to Paul Ewart, an Oxford physicist??? Ewart argued for the necessity of ontological chance and, hence, for a limitation on God’s knowledge of future events. Why in the world, if what you guys say were true, would Byl report that this conference with over 100 physicists and philosophers, all who know the field, presented “papers [that] dealt with various aspects of Polkinghorne’s works. Almost all seem to believe that God does not know the future.”? Why?
Jeff, explain this. See, you have massively misunderstood me. I am not saying what is the case from the quantum evidence, I am reporting what dozens and dozens of physicists and those trained to think long and hard about the implications of the evidence, are saying. All your “resolving” the matter is simply irrelevant.
Now, since it is a fact that many of the worlds best and brightest physicists and philosophers interpret QI in the way I have been saying they do, then it is obvious that the Confession discounts this interpretation of QI! What is so hard to understand about this?
Darren
So based on the Confession, you’ve demanded quantum determinacy, and thus mandate Einstein’s “spooky actions from a distance†from good and necessary consequence of Scripture? I’m thus conscience-bound to believe that a particle in Boston can instantaneously set off a detector on the far side of the moon? So you would discipline a Christian who sympathized with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Um, no. Is there something in the water here! I have no where said the Confession demands quantum determinacy per se. I have said it rules out certain interpretations of the evidence for quantum indeterminacy. I agree with the evidence for QI, but some scientists and philosophers interpret that evidence in ways the Confession won’t allow. Generally, though, yes, the Confession demands determinism (properly understand). God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. Indeed, since God knows “whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions,” then he knows where and when and why and how every quantum particle is and will be. Moreover, the Reformed view is that he knows this because he decreed it to be so! Go ask the quantum physicists I’ve cited, they’ll tell you that they believe the scientific evidence is inconsistent with this view of God. Apart from that, I am not an elder and so would not discipline any Christian. Moreover, I don;t think laymen are bound to hold to the Confession. However, pastors and elders cannot accept some of the interpretations of QI and remain fully subscribed.
Bob
Since you don’t know “most” physicists, you can’t confidently say what “most” of them care about. But that’s besides the point: some do care about it and have offered arguments inconsistent with the Confession.
I also don’t think “ever aspect of one’s worldview” is normative and have never argued that. As far as telling Christians what they “must” do: are you saying you wouldn’t tell Reformed Christians who are anthropologists how they MUST interpret the evidence of early man, specifically Adam? You won’t tell some how they MUST interpret the evidence of quantum mechanics? As I’ve shown, many above interpret it as proving God isn’t omniscient in the classical sense. Are you saying a Reformed pastor can deny WCF 3.2??? So much the worse for your “Confessionalism.
Jed,
Your latest post is an example of why I respond the way I do. You show zero desire to represent me properly and engage in all manner of misrepresenting my positions. You say this, “However, you tout worldview in such a way that the Christian should have some sort of account for what the Bible has to say to law, quantum physics, and medicine:”, yet you know this is false. It’s a lie. It also appears I am overemphasizing worldview, but that’s because of the context of dialogue. When Hart makes his false, outlandish, and grandious and careless claims, I correct him. Again, anything he publicly writes is fair game. If he would admit that Christianity and the Confession does have things to say to those areas I’ve addressed here, there’d be no comment from me. However, Hart repeatedly claims he “has no worldview” and that the Bible has nothing to say to “epistemology etc.” Lastly, you’ll probably take offense, but I often ignore your rather lengthy missives because there are so many errors (in logic, fact, and method), that I simply don’t have the time to correct and teach you. I have 24 hours just like you do, and I’m not getting paid to teach you. It’s just a judgment call on how to best spend my time.
LikeLike
To bolster the argument above, here’s piece by Oxford physicist (who knows more about physics than me, Jeff, or even “Bob,”):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/03/god-chance-philosophy-atheism
This is more undeniable evidence that physicists are saying what I have been saying, and Ewart used QI to demonstrate many of his claims.
LikeLike
Jeff, I don’t see what’s so obtuse or misleading in your hypothetical cross-examination. Scripture doesn’t speak to quantum mechanics because quantum mechanics aren’t made in the image and likeness of God. Quantum mechanics are made by God, yes, but Jesus didn’t live and die for quantum mechanics, or football, or plumbing, or education, or medicine, or politics, nor anything lacking the imago Dei. He lived and died for his people alone. This is pretty key is the difference between paleo- and neo-Calvinism. Is that quizzical, to say that Jesus lived and died for his people alone and not for anything else? If it is then you’ve been bitten by the neo bug, the effect of which is to actually think to greater or lesser degrees that Jesus became incarnate for dogs. Sorry, but, dog lover that I am, the biblical witness is that we are the sole target of his work. So, my formulation might make it hard to trust me in the sensationalized courtroom, but the necessary implication of neo-Calvinism that Jesus lived and died for non-imago Dei creation like fish and politics should be draw befuddled looks in the church. Maybe we should formulate another paleo-Protestant sola in response to the neo-Calvinist notion that God’s primary redemptive target, the imago Dei creation, may be co-opted by non-imago Dei creation: sola homo, solus mannus?
There’s absolutely nothing inconsistent or misleading about saying both that the Bible speaks to plumbing (“glorify God in one’s plumbingâ€) and that it does not give us detailed instruction as to how to do so. Slogan: “Speaking to†is not specifying.
No. The Bible neither speaks of nor to non-imago Dei creation. It only speaks of and to imago Dei creation. And in so doing it does specify how to glorify God, namely by faith alone—the same way he justifies imago Dei creation (i.e. faith alone is the instrument by which God and his people interact). The Bible does not tell us how to do any creational task. Granted, my slogan is longer, but…
LikeLike
I gave my argument as to how the Confession speaks to quantum mechanics, not those who do quantum mechanics. You can’t defeat the reasons offered by simply denying my conclusion.
Well, Paul, I guess you’re saying that Jesus lived and died for quantum physics. But last I checked “church†meant “people.â€
LikeLike
Bob: As someone with a PhD in quantum physics, I can confidently say that most of us couldn’t care less whether or not quantum indeterminacy operates on an ontic level. We’re much more interested in predicting and modeling measurable phenomena.
Feynman is alleged to have said in re: various interpretations of QM, “Shut up and calculate.” 🙂
Paul: You may be correct, but you aren’t the appropriate messenger for the job. I don’t have time (or interest) in surveying physicists on this matter; and you aren’t one. So my choice is to take your say-so on the matter, or to rely on the texts in my possession. Which would you choose? Not saying you’re wrong; just saying that with my limited information, I ought not believe you.
I *am* interested in the fact that Christian philosophers are trying to tie QI to free-will.
So for example, we agree: …some scientists and philosophers interpret that evidence in ways the Confession won’t allow.
Yep.
But I’m trying — and I’ll stop after this attempt — to get you to distinguish between Providence and determinism. You say,
Paul: Generally, though, yes, the Confession demands determinism (properly understand).
Determinism, as I said above, has a specific definition: The future state of a particle is uniquely determined by its past and present state.
Stop for a moment and meditate on this: If the Confession requires determinism, and if determinism has its standard meaning, then the Confession is saying that God is a part of the state of the universe. That implies that God does not stand outside the universe, but is a part of it and entangled with it. That’s pantheism.
If Providence is the same as determinism, then we end up with a pantheistic God.
Is that really what you want?
LikeLike
Zrim: Jeff, I don’t see what’s so obtuse or misleading in your hypothetical cross-examination.
That’s what concerns me.
Zrim: The Bible neither speaks of nor to non-imago Dei creation. It only speaks of and to imago Dei creation.
I find this bizarre. Gen 1.1-25 is a plain example of Scripture speaking of non-imago Dei creation.
Zrim, your proposition isn’t in the Confession nor in Scripture, and I don’t feel compelled to accept it.
The best I can come up with is that you are using some special definition of “speaking of and to.” What is that definition?
LikeLike
Jeff, it is rich for you to say that the distinction between verbs and adverbs is a word game when it strikes me that Frame’s dissent from the traditional RPW is all about taking part of a definition and then running with it — preaching and acting in worship, and the kicker, juggling.
But what you don’t seem to recognize about plumbing in the Bible is this. The Bible doesn’t talk about plumbing. It does talk about glorifying God. So it’s hardly a parallel situation and glorifying God can’t be the basis for starting a Christian school of plumbing.
This is intellectually sloppy. Sorry. But when you tell someone the Bible speaks to something you might actually expect the Bible to mention it. That would certainly be the expectation of people outside the faith. And remember, Frame makes great strides for his argument against RPW by arguing that worship must be intelligible to non-believers. Well, please tell me how the Bible can be intelligible to believers or non-believers when it doesn’t even intellectualize about a given subject.
Jeff, I don’t get it why you continue to defend what is so apparently a wrong proposition. And how does this form of hermeneutic not allow twisting clear words of instruction. “It wasn’t adultery, dear, it was loving my neighbor. Can love be wrong?”
LikeLike
Jeff, the point of saying that the Bible speaks neither of nor to non-imago Dei creation isn’t to deny something like Gen 1.1-25, it’s simply to say that the Bible is about the created imago Dei’s redemption. That’s the whole point of Scripture (per Jesus’ own hermeneutic). The non-imago Dei creation will be renewed, yes, but the central program is the imago Dei’s creation. What happens to the former depends on what happens to the latter. Non-imago Dei creation was subjected to hardship because of the actions of the imago Dei creation; it will be renewed when the imago Dei creation is finally glorified, all of which happen because of the work of Jesus. Is this really so controversial? So, all this talk about quantum physics, etc. is really just a way to move focus away from the primary program, away from the church, away from Word and sacrament, etc. Or at least co-opt it, which may be the craftier strategy.
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, it is rich for you to say that the distinction between verbs and adverbs is a word game when it strikes me that Frame’s dissent from the traditional RPW is all about taking part of a definition and then running with it — preaching and acting in worship, and the kicker, juggling.
It’s rich for me to say X when someone else says Y?
Last I checked, I’m not responsible for what Frame says. And you have already heard me say that I disagree with Frame on the RPW. So what exactly are you doing here? It would be helpful if you laid off the “well Frame says” arguments. I’m responsible for my own views, which are not identical to his.
DGH: The Bible doesn’t talk about plumbing. It does talk about glorifying God.
It talks about glorifying God in all we do (1 Cor 10.35) … and plumbing is something we do.
DGH: Jeff, I don’t get it why you continue to defend what is so apparently a wrong proposition.
I understand. I have the same “don’t get it” in reading you.
I’d like to take the conversation down a couple of decibels … I’ve been a little heated above, and that’s not really where we are or need to be.
What I hear you say is that since Scripture does not explicitly give instructions for plumbing, it therefore does not “speak to” plumbing. Is that correct?
LikeLike
Whatever Paul, you present yourself as someone who loves to give all kinds of lessons to those whom you disagree with. Your claims that I am somehow lying or misrepresenting what you have clearly written is false. It is very convenient to claim misrepresentation in order to write-off all detractors. You continue to assume the worst, as if I am trying to trap you. All I am stating are some areas where I either disagree with you on, or where you could clarify your position. It is nearly impossible to know if you are representing your position or if you are overstating your position. It would be helpful if you would represent your own positions more clearly, and quit with the schoolmaster shtick to prove unnecessary points.
Like I have said earlier I really don’t have a problem with you claiming that we have worldviews. However, you are arguing that our faith and the Confessions are the basic beliefs that form our worldview and you have offered no qualification. I am arguing that there are other basic beliefs that are culturally, psychologically, educationally, and vocationally conditioned (among other basic influences of belief) that make it difficult to locate a unified *Confessional Worldview*. The fact that these sort of arguments take place about the existence of a Reformed worldview at least should give credence to the fact that there isn’t a monolithic Reformed worldview, otherwise the worldview would be assumed and there would be little argument. But you refuse to interact with this, and are going to say I am a liar bent on misrepresenting you – well go ahead, but it only damages the credibility of your assertions on worldview since you dismiss arguments that you think are below you.
LikeLike
It is also strange how you justify direct insults on the basis that you believe someone deserves it. Does that stem from a confessional worldview as well?
LikeLike
Jeff, I know, I know, Frame also complains about the historian’s use of the genetic fallacy. But here’s the deal with you and Frame. You have said before that you studies with him and you have defended some of his teaching. Yes, you also say that you disagree with him on the RPW. But your continued insistence that the Bible speaks to everything is very close to what Frame says. So I put 2 + 2 together and suppose and suspect that you are carrying around inside your reasoning a lot of Framean arguments. That’s not to say that you don’t elaborate, clarify, and revise some of that reasoning. But I do wonder how much you have thought about the degree of Frame’s influence on your views.
As for the decibels, they are high mainly because of the direct speech. To say that the Bible speaks to something and then say that the Bible is silent about that same something is a very curious statement. Some would call it contradictory. Some would call it worse. But I don’t understand why you don’t feel discomfort over it.
As to your question, I not only think that the Bible says nothing directly about the work of plumbing, but I also believe that the Bible says nothing directly about ways to remove human waste or control the flow of water. I get it, sometimes waste and water come up but these are secondary to what the Bible is revealing.
So we have a fundamentally different assessment of Scripture (and this is also what you and Zrim are contesting). I believe the Bible is chiefly about salvation. You seem to believe that the Bible is about living. I understand that salvation is a big part of the way you conceive of living. But this is where we differ. My emphasis is on the Bible revealing what Christ has done, yours seems to be on what the Bible teaches us to do (with what Christ does being the means for us to do what we do).
LikeLike
Jeff,
The evidence I offered was links and also reference to a Conference. I mentioned Ewart’s article and Byl’s response. These are all easily, publicly accessible. You can either disbelieve or be agnostic on my claim that certain interpretations of QI deny God’s omniscience and sovereign decree of whatsoever comes to pass.
You asked,
But I’m trying — and I’ll stop after this attempt — to get you to distinguish between Providence and determinism. You say,
Paul: Generally, though, yes, the Confession demands determinism (properly understand).
Determinism, as I said above, has a specific definition: The future state of a particle is uniquely determined by its past and present state.
Stop for a moment and meditate on this: If the Confession requires determinism, and if determinism has its standard meaning, then the Confession is saying that God is a part of the state of the universe. That implies that God does not stand outside the universe, but is a part of it and entangled with it. That’s pantheism.
If Providence is the same as determinism, then we end up with a pantheistic God.
The problem is your narrow definition of “determinism.” Now, most people are aware that Calvinism is determinism. Unfortunately, many Reformed people don’t understand the implications of their own theology. And at this point I wonder how far we’ll stray and even how much I can take for granted.
Generally, the view is that “whatsoever comes to pass” is determined by God’s decree. This means that nothing can act contrary to God’s decree, nothing has the ability to actually do otherwise than what God has decreed. Necessarily, if God decrees X, then X; and, given the decree, not-X is impossible. This also means that God knows all things, and he knows them not on the basis of “forseeing” what they do, but on the basis of his plan or decree that they shall do X. Nothing can actualize alternate possibilities and nothing is the ultimate source or cause of its actions—i.e., nothing has ultimate sourcehood (except God, of course). Nothing is “probable” to God. Nothing, therefore, is inherently probabilistic, then. God can predict anything as 1, not >.9. Thus, probability only attaches to human cognizers. Ask any philosopher in the world, i.e., those who specialize in the metaphysics of action theory, and they will tell you that this is deterministic. And, this is straight Confessional Reformed theology.
Now, it is well know, or should be, that there are many different kinds of determinism, you’re thinking in terms of intramundane, mechanistic causal determinism. However, there are many other kinds, such as teleological determinism, or logical determinism, and others. Determinism as such doesn’t require the above models. So, there is no “standard meaning” of determinism. There are some necessary and sufficient features, such as ruling our alternate possibilities and ultimate sourcehood and events or actions as consequences or something “prior” (whether logical or temporal), but how said things are ruled out differs among models.
Now, providence is God’s governing of the world, how he brings about or orders his plan or decree. Ultimately, whatever happens is the result of God prior decree, it is a consequence of his prior decree (If decree X, then X; call this the entailment principle). Now, since nothing has power of God’s prior decree, and since nothing has power of the entailment principle, nothing has power to do other than X; other than what is decreed. This is a restatement and readjustment of the consequence argument. Since it is just an inference from Reformed doctrine, along with some fairly unobjectionable metaphysical truths, we can see how Reformed theology is deterministic. This model rules out what the above physicists, who I have provided evidence of, are saying the evidence of QI tells us. These two things are incompatible. That isn’t say QI as such is incompatible, just the relevant model under discussion.
Further, take Reformed notions of God’s omniscience. Simply put, if God knows at t1 that a certain quanta Q will be at position * at t3, then Q cannot, at t2, cannot do anything such that at t3 it would be at ~ *. If it could do this, it would either have one of two powers: (a) it could have the power to make one of God’s beliefs false, or (b) it could have the power to change the past such that God held a different belief at t1 than he held. Both of these are impossible. But, again, this is incompatible with the interpretations of many quantum physicists, cf. the Oxford Conference and Ewart’s claims.
Given reformed theology, then, nothing actual is inherently or innately indeterministic or probabilistic, for both of those deny some essential Reformed tenant. However, many quantum physicists think that quanta are inherently or innately probabilistic or indeterministic. Therefore, according to the Reformed Confession, we are bound to deny their interpretation of the data, despite any evidence they may marshal on their behalf—or, we revise our understanding of Reformed doctrine. But, traditional readings and contemporary views on QM/QI can’t go together.
I hope that helped scratch where you were itching.
LikeLike
Jed, I’m obviously interacting extensively with others, you’re the only one I blow off. Why? As I said, sorry if that offends you. I have never said the Confessions and the Bible give us our basic beliefs by which we form our worldviews (quote me!). Indeed, I’m Plantinganian, so I wouldn’t say that! I also don’t believe there is a “unified confessional worldview” and have never implied as much; in fact, I am on public record here, and in my blog post you read denying that. I also flat out deny and have never affirmed that there is “a monolithic Reformed worldview.” So, yes, I refuse to interact with your claims about what I have publicly denied, here and in other places. You need to offer quotes from me, then engage in exegesis and show how you get the impression you do out of my quotes, reading them charitably. But you don;t do that, you make assertions that you offer no textual support for and then demand that I resolve “problems.” But those problems are only of your own making. You have done this repeatedly. I say this honestly and seriously, can’t you see how this gets tiring and frustrating? I bother to put in hard work and read those I disagree with, most here it appears do not. Their is an unfamiliarity with the relevant fields, terms, and concepts. There is a reading comprehension problem. And there is an insinuation problem that never finds textual support. For example, you think I get all happy and in a good mood when Hart claims that I think “regeneration raises the I.Q.”? or do you think that slander and unsupported claim might cause some frustration to come out. And when it does, I then get blamed for being a big ole meany. But(!), there’s much concern here with contemporary Western notions of civil discourse and almost none for intellectual virtue. No one hammers on others for misrepresentations and hyperbole and ignorant conjectures. No one hammers on others for speaking about matters they haven’t spent more then 5 minutes thinking about. It’s sad, really.
LikeLike
DGH: But here’s the deal with you and Frame. You have said before that you studies with him
Actually, I have not studied with him. I have read some of his works and studied under one of his students in the mid-90s. At that time, I found his thoughts and mine running somewhat parallel; I found some of his ideas helpful, some not. In general, it is safe to say that Frame is not responsible for my faults.
DGH: … and you have defended some of his teaching.
Yes. And I would say that that’s the part of responsible thinking: Some of what Frame says is good, some not. Some of what Hart says is good, some not. Recovering the Reformed Confession had a lot good to say, some not so much. Some of what I say is garbage; some is decent.
If we are going to be about testing beliefs against Scripture, we should not be surprised to find fallen humans being inconsistently solid in their theology.
And that’s my main complaint against your treatment of Frame. You accumulate disagreements without conceding any agreements — which insinuates that he himself is consistently wrong.
Regardless of your motive, the outcome is not a charitable one. If I could say something to encourage you to cease-and-desist, I would.
DGH: To say that the Bible speaks to something and then say that the Bible is silent about that same something is a very curious statement. Some would call it contradictory. Some would call it worse. But I don’t understand why you don’t feel discomfort over it.
Be more careful here. One of us (raises hand) says that the Bible speaks to all things in the sense that it places conditions on all that we do.
The other of us (gestures across the table) says that the Bible is silent or does not speak to all things.
Yes, we refute each other; but no, I am not contradicting myself. I’m willing for the sake of common ground to say that the Bible is relatively silent on plumbing … meaning that it places few conditions on the plumber … but not absolutely silent. The Bible is quite noisy, in fact, about the family, which is certainly a common-sphere enterprise.
DGH: I believe the Bible is chiefly about salvation.
I do, too.
DGH: You seem to believe that the Bible is about living … your [emphasis] seems to be on what the Bible teaches us to do (with what Christ does being the means for us to do what we do).
Absolutely not. You may not have intended it, but that’s a very offensive suggestion.
I’m not comfortable with the fact that you often speculate on what I “seem to believe.” The speculations usually run wide of the mark and often insinuate heresy.
LikeLike
Okay, Jeff, if you think the Bible is chiefly about salvation, why a Christian school of plumbing? Why on earth or in heaven would Christians ever think to establish a such a school on Christian grounds if the Bible is chiefly about salvation?
No need, btw, to bring out the h-word. Disagreement and error are sufficient for where we are. And I’m glad to know that you think the Bible is chiefly about salvation. Here’s a word of advice — it doesn’t seem like that when you talk about Christian plumbing.
As for my agreements with Frame, I’m not buying. I actually believe I share more in common with Al Mohler than with John Frame.
LikeLike
Be more careful here. One of us (raises hand) says that the Bible speaks to all things in the sense that it places conditions on all that we do. The other of us (gestures across the table) says that the Bible is silent or does not speak to all things.
Jeff, caution cuts both ways. The other of us say that the Bible is silent or does not speak to all things in the sense that it makes a distinction between non-imago Dei creation (read: things) and imago Dei creation, speaking only to the latter strictly speaking. But it also interesting that the way you qualify your view is to include something about HUMAN activity (“it places conditions on all that WE doâ€). If I didn’t know any better I’d say you’re privileging the imago Dei over his projects, interests, cares and hobbies. But then I remember you have us possibly constructing Christian schools for plumbing…
And if you agree that the Bible is chiefly about the implications of our redemption then why do you seem so concerned with its implications for our creation? Maybe you want to say that both our creation and redemption matter, and I would agree, but I would also say that our redemption matters more. Maybe you think that to be too otherworldly, and while I’d agree that there is such a thing as bad otherworldliness, you’ll have a hard time making the case that the points being made over here are bad otherworldliness with Jesus telling us to not let even the highest temporal good—created life itself (Lk. 14:26)—get between us and him, which is another way of making a point about eternal life in contrast with temporal life (in fact, he uses “hate speech†about the highest temporal good). These aren’t ways to suggest heresy, Jeff, just ways to point out what separates us and what the implications are.
LikeLike
DGH: Okay, Jeff, if you think the Bible is chiefly about salvation, why a Christian school of plumbing? Why on earth or in heaven would Christians ever think to establish a such a school on Christian grounds if the Bible is chiefly about salvation?
Put it like this:
Gal 2.20: I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
The fact of our salvation — that which the Bible is chiefly about — has implications for Paul’s life that he now lives. Those implications include one’s choice of dinner companions (Gal 2.11 – 13). There is a religious issue (are we justified by keeping the Mosaic Law? No.) which has spillover into our common-sphere behavior (can we separate ourselves from Gentile brethren at meals? No.).
Likewise, the life that we now live, we live by faith and not by sight. We live it by faith looking for the city that is to come. And that faith has implications for how we live now: *not* storing up treasure here on earth, for example.
As to a “Christian school of plumbing” — that was your suggestion, not mine. I briefly entertained the idea, saw little harm in it, and moved on.
DGH: No need, btw, to bring out the h-word. Disagreement and error are sufficient for where we are.
OK, good to know.
DGH: Here’s a word of advice — it doesn’t seem like that when you talk about Christian plumbing.
I will cheerfully retract anything I’ve said that goes beyond WCoF 19.6. What do you have in mind?
LikeLike
Zrim: But it also interesting that the way you qualify your view is to include something about HUMAN activity (“it places conditions on all that WE doâ€). If I didn’t know any better I’d say you’re privileging the imago Dei over his projects, interests, cares and hobbies. But then I remember you have us possibly constructing Christian schools for plumbing…
Zrim, HUMAN activity is variously called “projects”, “interests”, “cares”, or “hobbies” (or “worship”). What in the world would it mean to privilege HUMAN activity over “projects”?!
Put it like this: We agree that we are to “speak the truth in love”, right? When does this “speaking” occur? In our lives. Mostly, when we are in the common realm.
The downside of trying so hard to separate “verbs from adverbs” is that one must pretend that God’s commands cover our “Christian lives” without noticing that “Christian lives” are the lives that we live.. As in, common-sphere living. The command to “speak the truth in love” does not occur in a vacuum; it applies to the words we say in common, everyday life.
The issue is decontextualization. Are God’s commands decontextualized, to be considered and obeyed in the abstract? Or are they to be obeyed in context, at the point at which we live?
LikeLike
Jeff, the point was that Christianity says redeemed people are prior to their creative projects. Sorry to introduce more grammer, but once we begin to think that projects are at least as important as people is when we starting putting the adjective “Christian” before certain nouns, as in Christian science, medicine, education, business, politics, etc. The only time this is appropriate is when we speak of the Christian church because the project is redemptive, not creative. But the project even here is still people, the church is a redeemed people. And the church is the only project God is after, it’s the only institution Jesus ordained in his earthly ministry.
So, even if DGH proposed a school for Christian plumbing you still entertained it. For my part, it makes absolutely no sense, so I cannot even entertain it unless to amuse myself. I understand what Christians going to plumbing school is, but I’ve no idea what a Christian school for plumbing could even conceivably be. And that’s because I make a distinction between people and their projects. The notion of a Christian salad isn’t silly because salads are trivial, it’s silly because Jesus didn’t live and die for lettuce. The same is true for more enduring projects, like craftsmenship or education or statecraft: Jesus didn’t live and die for plumbing, learning or political arrangement, he lived and died for the PEOPLE (yes, I’m actually e-yelling now) who do these various things.
LikeLike
Zrim: And that’s because I make a distinction between people and their projects. The notion of a Christian salad isn’t silly because salads are trivial, it’s silly because Jesus didn’t live and die for lettuce. The same is true for more enduring projects, like craftsmenship or education or statecraft: Jesus didn’t live and die for plumbing, learning or political arrangement, he lived and died for the PEOPLE (yes, I’m actually e-yelling now) who do these various things.
I appreciate — genuinely — that you want to make a distinction between the main thing, which is the salvation of people, and the secondary thing, which is living.
Still and all, I think that your distinction has run off the rails because it causes you to disregard or dismiss others and place them into false categories.
Shouldn’t it be of concern that you and DGH suspect me of thinking that Christianity is about living, rather than about salvation? Doesn’t that suggest that your way of perceiving what others say is flawed?
—
If you can entertain that idea for a moment, then entertain this one also: Paul repeatedly speaks to people who (outwardly) already possess salvation. He gives them verbs, commands. Not nouns, like “salad”, but verbs. Those verbs, such as “speak truthfully to one another”, or “work with your hands so that you have something to share with others in need.”
Those are commands that apply to one’s common life.
That’s a simple observation, it’s not particularly arguable, and it doesn’t alter the main thing that we agree on: that Scripture is about salvation.
Now work with me here:
(1) If Scripture is about salvation, and
(2) Scripture includes commands about our common life, then
(3) Those commands are a “part of” our salvation.
I say “part of” to forestall any sense that obedience to commands contributes to our justification, ’cause I just know you’re itching to go there.
In fact, isn’t this what the Confession teaches?
“These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life. ”
What are those good works? Things like “speaking the truth in love.” Those good works occur in the context of common life.
So it’s neither here no there whether Jesus died for salads (He didn’t). What matters is that for the Christian, the common life is not separate from religion; it is rather the arena in which one’s “true religion” is demonstrated — as James teaches.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I’m assuming my answer to your question was agreeable.
LikeLike
Paul, thanks for the response. If and when the links show up, I’ll check them out.
The “narrow” definition that I’ve provided is the one that most scientists use. I have great hesitation about moving over into worlds of logical or theological determinism as a way of understanding what scientists think.
Did it make sense that a standard scientific definition of determinism, coupled with an identification of Providence with determinism, would likely be a kind of pantheism?
LikeLike
Paul,
I think you’ve entirely missed the point (and I think Jeff is trying to make a similar point). Physicists, in my experience are generally lousy philosophers. They may attempt to attach an interpretation of QM to their philosophy, whether it’s Kant or process theology. It fails the same way Hawking fails in claiming that physics proves that the universe needs no creator. Their concept of God is a God of the gaps; they demonstrate a persistent inability to distinguish between a material and a final cause. They lack a Creator-creature distinction.
That you require the confession to weigh in on ontic determinism seems to me that you have bought into their flawed premise. You’ve allowed them to set the terms of the debate. The mechanism of divine action is known and dependent on creation.
So why can’t we allow that creation may be inherently probabilistic at the quantum level, indeterminable from within creation … while at the same time, the Creator has predetermined all outcomes?
LikeLike
Jeff, the implications of QI rule out the relevant determinism that Reformed theology endorses, and I argued for how and why it does that. That’s precisely why, Jeff, physicists are making this argument. That’s why, Jeff, John Byl had to go to Oxford and present a paper undermining the exact argument I’ve been referring to. I also cannot imagine why you think you know more about physics and the scientific understanding of intramundane mecahanistic/causal determinism than does Polkinghorne, Barbour, et al. Do they know more about physics than you do? Yes. Do they know the scientific definition of determinism to which you refer? Yes. Then why in the world could they make the arguments they are making. Again, your position is at odds with the empirical facts.
Darren,
I have missed no point, you are the one missing the point. Let me say this for you: I AM NOT COMMENTING ON WHETHER THE PHYSICISTS ARE RIGHT, AND I TOLD YOU AS MUCH IN MY RESPONSE TO YOU.
Do you get this, Darren? The fact is, there is an interpretation of QI, and it is the majority interpretation today (despire Jeff”s reference to guys who died in 1988), and that interpretation is ruled out by the Confession.
That you bring up the Confession point again without dealing, in detail, with my response to that point, is simply irresponsible.
Lastly, your last sentence is a contradiction. But look now we have Reformed theologians allowing for inherent and genuine chance and indeterminism!!! Why not just allow libertarian free will (at the created level) and then say God predetermines the will???? LOL
This thread proves my point about the need for critical thinking and philosophical knowledge within the Reformed tradition. This is the rotten fruit of overemphais on historical theology and “Confessionalism.”
LikeLike
Here’s the Ewart piece, Jeff:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/03/god-chance-philosophy-atheism
John Byl responded to him at Oxford. Remember, Byl said almost all the people at the conference believed the evidence from QI showed that an Open view of God is correct.
Notice that Ewart knows his position, and that of many other contemporary physicists, is incompatible with Calvinism! LOL. He understands the implications, guys. You guys (not Jeff here) have taken the “there is no such thing as Christian plumbing” too far, and you;re in danger of subverting the Reformed faith. With friends like you . . .
LikeLike
And note that Ewart tries to make a similar move as Darren did, the exact same move all open theists make.
LikeLike
Paul,
I recommend that you chill a bit. You are shouting your point so emphatically that you haven’t taken the time to listen.
How much detail do you need me to interact with before my comments become responsible? I’m actually more interested in raising the spectre of presuppositions — if the unchallenged axioms prove wanting, then the deliberations on the surface were taking place on thin ice anyway.
The last sentence of my previous comment is only contradictory if you do away with the Creator-creature distinction. Even the most indeterminate interpretation of QM is indeterminate only on the level of creation — that is of creaturely knowledge. None of this restricts or determines the knowledge of the Creator who determines all things (and just to be clear, I reject Molinism also).
Paul, how am I making a similar move as Ewart? May I suggest that you are actually closer to Ewart by buying into his assumptions that an interpretation of quantum mechanics necessitates an interpretation of the Creator? I’ll repeat the phrase: Creator-creature distinction. Now should I have said it in all capital letters, or with a few exclamation marks for good measure?
LikeLike
Jeff,
It is one thing to say that Paul says speak truthfully or that Christians have liberty to (not must) eat pork. It is another to say that because of these instructions the Bible speaks to plumbing. One crack in the common realm and there you go running through it with everything in the common.
Your quoting the confession on good works is precisely the reason I was issuing words of caution about the Bible as living and the Bible as salvation. “Part of” salvation is not exactly the best way to build a doctrine of salvation or to guard sufficiently against the idea that because works are evidence of saving faith they become “part of” salvation. The chapter from which you quote is very clear that works are not meritorious. In that sense then are not “part of” salvation. The chapter also teaches that good works are filthy rags, another reason for saying they are no “part of” salvation. That you respond in this way confirms my worries and objections to the “all of life” approach to the Bible. That approach cannot keep matters straight, as in what the Bible reveals or what is of first priority in salvation. And as I’ve long suspected, the effort to read our projects and endeavors into Scripture — from personal performance to grand ambitions for cultural transformation — ends up adding works to salvation in squishy and truly confusing ways.
Here’s another objection to your approach to Scripture. It’s like reading the parable of the persistent widow in Luke 18 and thinking that it’s about judges and social justice. Christ does actually mention those aspects of human existence. But that is hardly the point. So the idea that the Bible speaks to Christian plumbing is like taking the illustrative material as the point and missing the point.
LikeLike
Darren,
I was trying for emphasis, not shouting. The italics didn’t seem to work for you. I gave a specific argument for why indeterminism cannot exist at the ontic level, only at the epistemic level. I gave an argument for that, based on not only decree, but also forewknowledge. You have failed to interact with that argument, and so are wasting dialogue time.
“The last sentence of my previous comment is only contradictory if you do away with the Creator-creature distinction.”
Oh yeah, how so? And, are you willing to go on record, right here and now, and say that Reformed theology is compatible with human creatures having libertarian free will (at the created level) and that that will is also predestined/pre-determined by God (at the creator level)? How could you deny this given what you’re admitting? Indeed, many are using QI to show we have the necessary conditions in place for libertarian free will (see Robert Kane’s stuff). So, how about it?
“Even the most indeterminate interpretation of QM is indeterminate only on the level of creation — that is of creaturely knowledge.”
Right, God’s not physical, created, or contained within our natural world. Everyone knows this yet they still make the arguments from QI to God’s knowledge and decree and control (I even cited the Oxford physicist’s article above). So your move (saying the indeterminate items are within creation) changes nothing since that it has always been part of the argument. Open Theists say the same exact thing. They say indeterminism obtains in the created world only. Everyone knows this yet still makes the argument.
“None of this restricts or determines the knowledge of the Creator who determines all things (and just to be clear, I reject Molinism also).”
Saying so doesn’t make it so. Determinining that somethings act undetermined is contradictory. God determines in the created world.
“Paul, how am I making a similar move as Ewart?”
Similar move as all open theists and libertarians by claiming God allows undetermined things to obtain in his creation. This is contra reformed theology, per my argument (that hasn’t been addressed).
“May I suggest that you are actually closer to Ewart by buying into his assumptions that an interpretation of quantum mechanics necessitates an interpretation of the Creator?”
The problem isn’t agreeing with Ewart per se, it’s where the agreement lies. That’s why everyone else seems to know this. If a quanta is determined, via God’s decree, to be at position * at time t, then it is impossible that it could have ever been at ~ * at t, but the QI I’m presenting here, the popular contemporary view, denies this. It is denied by definition, and that point undermines your unargued claim that God can determine created things to be undetermined so long as it’s at the “level of creator” (whatever that means).
“I’ll repeat the phrase: Creator-creature distinction.”
It’s simply a term you’re throwing around that isn’t doing any work. I know the phrase, I love it, and I use it to make a great many apologetic and philosophic points. But it’s not a stop-all to paper over any problem. If your move works, why not allow us to have libertarian free will, as many neuroscientists are now arguing based on brain studies. Or is it okay to say that an interpretation of neuroscience necessitate an interpretation of the creator? Hoist by your own petard.
” Now should I have said it in all capital letters, or with a few exclamation marks for good measure?
Your sarcasm is unwaranted by your bad arguments, or, actually, non-arguments. And, all this would have done is highlight your bad arguments, so be my guest.
LikeLike
Jeff,
It seems like you’re making a point about Christian obedience, but you already know how I have succinctly characterized the Christian life to be all about obedience. And as I recall you suggested that this is a form of latent legalism(!). But my doctrine of obedience has only to do with the sanctification of people, not their projects. I understand that you think the danger here is that it places people into categories (like paleo- and neo-Calvinists, I presume), but I’ve never understood the prejudice against such categorizing, so I’m unmoved as to how this is a problem. Like I have said before, it seems to me you’re trying to forge an ecclesiastical via media between paleo-Calvinism and neo-Calvinism. That’s a very modern move, it seems to me, one very much like trying to forge a soteriological middle way between Calvinism and Arminianism, which invariably turns out to be Arminianism that simply can’t admit itself yet for whatever reasons.
That said, I don’t think you’re sufficiently understanding that the implication of your neo-Calvinism is actually to undermine the sanctification of people. You want Christianity to tell the believing plumber how to plumb when all it demands is that he keep the law. I know you have nothing explicitly against keeping the law, but when you also want the believing plumber to ascertain something from the Bible about his craft he’s going to be relatively distracted from the only task it actually gives him, namely the law. And keeping the revealed law is hard enough without trying to divine something unrevealed about one’s craft.
And so my concern runs along DVD’s in his chapter in Always Reformed. In it, he is essentially making the point that neo-Calvinism undermines the church, not by explicitly being anti-church since neo’s are dedicated servants of the church, but by suggesting that the main project is in fulfilling the original creation mandate in the various
spheres of human culture instead of around the contemplations and rituals of Word and sacrament. What I read in you is an impulse that undermines the sanctification of people in the same way that neo-Calvinism generally undermines the church.
LikeLike
Jeff, if you’re still listening, I’m curious why you resist the notion of the Bible being silent. I can see several possible reasons:
1) The Bible is given for all of life, so it has to speak to everything.
2) To affirm its silence is to undermine its authority. If it doesn’t speak to everything it is ultimately not authoritative for everything.
3) Where else do we turn for God’s will other than the Bible?
LikeLike
Paul, I associate myself with Darren’s comments. I’ll let him carry the torch on this issue from here.
LikeLike
Zrim: I would not describe myself as a via media between much of anything. In my view, in general, the truth lies not in between errors, but on a different axis altogether.
Anyway, this sentence is productive and gets to the heart of it:
You want Christianity to tell the believing plumber how to plumb when all it demands is that he keep the law … And keeping the revealed law is hard enough without trying to divine something unrevealed about one’s craft.
Here, I would like for you to listen carefully, if I may be so forward.
(1) I’m not interested in having the plumber look for anything unrevealed about his craft. Recall my firm stance on Christian liberty.
(2) I *am* interested in the plumber keeping the law while he plumbs To me, it is enough if the plumber plumbs within the explicit boundaries set by the law.
(3) And I express (1) and (2) as “Christianity has something (but not everything) to say about plumbing.” Not plumbing in specific — there are no passages on plumbing in specific that I know of — but plumbing as a species of human activity that falls under the scope of the law.
My understanding is that (1) and (2) are agreeable to you; but you don’t like (3) for some reason or other.
In my view, (3) is a more honest, forthright way to express (1) and (2) than to say “the Bible is silent about plumbing” — which appears to me to be true only if one crosses one’s fingers and squints.
So pragmatically, we actually agree. That’s probably why you find me “more reasonable than most.” But at the theoretical level, we seem to have really different structures in mind. To my mind, (3) is obviously true and clear; to you, not so.
That’s OK — as long as you aren’t leveling charges of “latent legalism” and “undermining the church” and “error” and “adding works to salvation in squishy and confusing ways” in my direction. After all, the Confession doesn’t take sides on philosophical structures, does it?
And, it would be preferrable if you were able to articulate something of my view accurately.
The main concern I have about pc-2k, at this point, is that the adherents here are simply unable to represent others (raises hand, looks over in direction of Frame) without inaccuracies or distortions. That is a red flag for me.
There, I said it.
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, if you’re still listening, I’m curious why you resist the notion of the Bible being silent.
Yes, I am. Despite the more recent heat, I think the conversation has been productive in clarifying some things.
My reason would be close to, but not identical to (1). I simply believe that the proposition “The Bible is silent about plumbing” is false.
Why?
(1) The Bible speaks to all human activities.
(2) Plumbing is a human activity.
(3) Therefore, the Bible speaks to plumbing.
That doesn’t mean that I think the Bible has cryptic code for plumbers buried in its depths; it just means that whatever Scripture says concerning our behavior, applies to our behavior while we are plumbing.
To turn your example around: If a man cheats on his wife as a part of his work for the CIA, is it still cheating on his wife? I say, Yes. You say … what? That the Bible doesn’t speak to spycraft? Surely not.
LikeLike
Jeff, don’t you think it’s possible to suggest that there are variants of law-gospel confusion without saying that they rise to the level of explicit law-gospel confusion?
But what you want to say is that Christianity has something (but not everything) to say about plumbing. When I ask what that means you make a lot of pains to eventually end up saying that it means something about believers being honest, which is really a way of saying something about believers keeping the law, which is pretty much my point. The thing about my point is that it applies to everything without having to say anything about everything.
The thing about the language you insist on as being “obviously true and clear, honest and forthright†is that it just doesn’t pass the test of common sense and plain reading, which is my red flag. It seems to me better to say that the Bible has something to say to plumbers (which is to say people). I think the ordinary hearer gets that “the Bible has something to say to people and is silent about everything from plumbing to politics†well before he gets that “the Bible speaks to plumbing and politics,†which appears to me to only be true if one’s crosses his fingers and squints. Maybe you think the common sense/plain reading test is way too ordinary and irrelevant, but it sure seems to me to be the hermeneutic of a theology of the cross.
LikeLike
To turn your example around: If a man cheats on his wife as a part of his work for the CIA, is it still cheating on his wife? I say, Yes. You say … what? That the Bible doesn’t speak to spycraft? Surely not.
Jeff, on the one hand you complain about being read uncharitably, then you say something like this. Sigh.
But, no. If it’s true that the Bible speaks to people and not their crafts then one may work as a spy for an American administration or a Nazi regime (read: liberty), but he mayn’t either adulterate in his own body or murder by his own hands body (read: binding). The larger political projects may arguably go to either good ends or evil, but in no way may any believer break the law of God in either case. It’s about obedience, remember?
LikeLike
Jeff, wow. Darren has been denying fundamentals of Reformed theology.
Anyway, maybe you can humor me and answer the question Darren hasn’t: given that you align yourself with Darren, then it you could not deny libertarian free will in principle. Perhapos God just determines us and we have libertarian free will. God determines at the level of Creator. We ahve indeterministic freedom at the level of creature. Darren’s position, which you affirm, don’t allow you to object to this.
So, Jeff’s position is that God determines things that are undetermined. Good one, Jeff.
LikeLike
Zrim: The thing about my point is that it applies to everything without having to say anything about everything.
The thing about the language you insist on as being “obviously true and clear, honest and forthright†is that it just doesn’t pass the test of common sense and plain reading, which is my red flag.
I’m sorry that we’re at odds. My sense is that on a lot of pragmatic questions we would agree.
To me, at least, the language
“it applies to everything, but doesn’t say anything about everything”
fails the common sense and plain reading tests. If X applies, then X has said something. Dunno where to go from here.
LikeLike
Paul, I have no difficulty denying libertarian free will in principle. The reason is that the kind of determinism I’m talking about is strictly of the scientific sort.
Your issue is that you have multiple definitions of “determinisim” floating around, and you want to apply all of them all at once to this question. That’s a lousy procedure. Nail down what you want to mean by determinism first, and then see whether or not QI conflicts with it.
The scientific definition of QI (“The future state of a particle is not determined by its present and past state”) is 100% compatible with Providence. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
LikeLike
Zrim, BTW, there was not an uncharitable reading going on. The reason I said “surely not” is that I knew which way you would go on that question.
My point was that, knowing that you would insist on obedience, that you might think through this line of thought:
(1) If Bob has to obey the Law while on the job,
(2) So that he may not cheat on his wife, then
(3) The Law has something to say about what job-related tasks he may perform.
That is: if the Law forbids Bob from cheating on his wife in work-related activity, then the Law says to Bob, “No adultery in work-related activity.”
I’m trying to get across that “forbidding” is in fact “saying.”
There’s a deep Scriptural issue involved here. In Scripture, obeying the Lord is also called “listening to the voice” of the Lord (or even, of someone else — Gen. 3.17). What you’re trying to say to me is that we must obey the Law in our common endeavors, but that the Law is silent about those common endeavors.
I find that to be a distortion of the Scriptural word usage.
LikeLike
Thanks for your vote of confidence, Jeff. But it seems that Paul does not demonstrate much of the virtue of teachability. I too am about to bow out.
Paul
I want to encourage you to consider how unedifying your tone is. I’ve benefited from rebukes in my past, which have stopped me short, ashamed of my sin. So I’m hoping that you will heed this wake-up call: you need to grow up. Your immaturity hurts your case. Do you realize that you sound like a troll? I attempted to interact on the good faith that you are not one. Sadly you have not acquitted yourself. Consider Proverbs 13:16 and 17:27-28.
However, against my better judgment (cf. Prov 26:4-5), I will make one last attempt at clarification.
You toss this “liberatarian free will” too freely. As the great theologian Inigo Montoya said, “I do not think it means what you think it means.” Open theists claim that God cannot know the future, much less determine it. He is only “infinitely resourceful” to handle however the creation self-actualizes. I affirm that God not only knows all things, past, present and future, but he foreordains everything according to his good plan and absolutely free pleasure. Creatures have full creaturely freedom. We do what we want to do. God not only knew it ahead of time, but all of our actions somehow (even spookily) work out to accomplish God’s intended plan, a plan which is not dependent upon creaturely action. God is not the author of sin; what man intended for evil, God intends for good (cf. Gen 50:20; Acts 2:23). So far, I think I’m merely restating WCF III.1-2. In our sinful state, we are not free to not sin, but by the grace of God (WCF IX). We are not free to self-actualize ourselves in a way independent of the eternal decree … that is the delusion of those who rage and plot in vain (Psalm 2) who attempt to be like God in their own way (cf. Gen 3).
If this is libertarian free will, then the Reformed tradition believes libertarian free will.
As for quantum mechanics, I find it strange that you would listen to unbelieving/unorthodox physicists whose philosophy includes no theological concept of the Creator-creature distinction (and yes, I include Polkinghorne in that group also, unless you want to defend his impeccably orthodox credentials) over believing physicists, some of whom not only dealt with these issues for 5+ years in PhD programs, but also have MDivs from reformed seminaries. How many essays have you read to become more expert in this field than Bob or me? Isn’t your anti-2K program was to show that the Calvinists make their “redeeming” contribution that unbelievers cannot? You should love that I’m trying to point out, from a traditional, confessionally reformed standpoint, that the biggest names in quantum perspectives in divine action, be they Ewart, Polkinghorne, Davies, Russell, or whoever, are overstepping quantum interpretations’ ability to speak to the theology of the Triune God who hides himself from the wise of the world and reveals himself to infants and babes.
I’ve explained why: it’s the Creator-creature distinction. Ewart et al. must assume either pantheism or panentheism to reach their conclusions (as Jeff pointed out). I’m really not sure what to make of your stubborn insistence that I’m making the same move as Ewart when I am denying the legitimacy of his very program of doing theology. It’s a god of the gaps: God does some things, creation does other things. And in Ewart’s world, God becomes part of the scientifically investigated mechanism for how creation works, and vice-versa.
This is the assumption that you left unchallenged when you say that they get it. No, they do not get it. Does being confessional forbid me to conclude that QM results in open theism? Of course it does. But my contention is that neither Copenhagen nor a whole slew of indeterminate interpretations leads to that conclusion, nor any theological conclusion by necessity. I have no bone to pick in the battle over QI. But I do have a bone to pick in the battle with those who let QI determine their theology. Why, on both counts? The Creator-creature distinction. If you don’t know anything about this concept, I suggest you read up on it. It’s pretty central to a “Reformed world view.” The doctrine of dual-agency (cf. WCF III.1-2; V.1-3) is dependent on it. Do you affirm dual agency? From what you’ve written, you do not seem terribly aware of it.
This is the reason I’m not attempting to discuss on your terms, no more than I would allow Ewart or Polkinghorne to set the terms of discussion of QM and divine action, no more than I would allow, as one influenced by Van Til, an unbeliever (even a brilliant one like Stephen Hawking) to set the terms for debate over the existence of God. To meet you where you demand, you would be asking me to deny the Creator-creature distinction (i.e. my Reformed convictions), and to pretend there is no meaningful distinction between material and final cause. Sorry, no can do.
You don’t seem to like it when DGH asserts that Scripture doesn’t give us a worldview. If you are allowed to raise a challenge to his assumption, then I am allowed to raise a challenge to yours. Your attempt to restrict certain modes of quantum interpretation capitulates to pan(en)theistic assumptions. It’s not good theology. Well, not good Christian theology … I guess it’s good stuff if you’re a process theologian or gnostic guru.
And c’mon, time to get off of our high horses and get a reality check: quantum mechanics is describing how particles behave. It’s a pretty big stretch (even if your name is Polkinghorne) to go from that and pontificate: “Therefore God ….” I mean, QM is useless even when it comes to describing human behavior. Physicists who haven’t let their egos get the better of them (and believe me, physicists have pretty big egos) freely admit that they are coming up with grand unified theories of everything that in practice describe nothing. Do we really want the church to jump into the fray and partake in the absurdity?
At this point, I need to sign out of this discussion.
Jeff, I hope I have not made you regret associating with my comments?
LikeLike
“Since you don’t know “most†physicists…” -Paul
This attack is spurious.
I can “know” physicists through their publications. I can go to the physics library at any research university, peruse the physics journals available on the shelf, and get a fairly rough assessment of what quantum physicists do in their work. I can confidently say that the number of journal articles that concern measurable phenomena is far greater than the number that concern the issues of which you speak. As a further test, how many graduate-level quantum mechanics texts address issues such as whether quantum indeterminacy is ontic? If you find one, let me know.
LikeLike
Jeff:
I agree with your point. All Christians are commanded to do all things according to God’s Law and from a sincere faith. That’s the same for a plumber, a lawyer, a philosopher, a public school teacher, or a teacher. These broad requirements are the same for every Christian in every Christian endeavor. But I want to go a step further. The moral law (summarized in the Ten Commandments) is the only standard that we have for determining whether or not the way in which a person performs a job is “Christian.” The other requirements for Christian common endeavors are subjective (e.g. from faith or as if working for God and not men).
The bible speaks to the Christians conduct as he performs his work. That’s all it does. It doesn’t tell the plumber how to turn his wrench or the politician how to write a law. It doesn’t tell a math teacher that the sum of two and two is four or tell a philosopher the basics of logic.
Claiming that something other than personal morality makes one form of a job more Christian than another is a sin against your brother’s liberty. To claim that a philosopher must teach a certain epistemology or that a teacher must teach in a certain manner or that a politician must adopt a certain fiscal policy to be carrying out his common work in a “Christian” way is placing burdens on a man that Christ has set free. The same is true for all common endeavors.
LikeLike
* This sentence: “These broad requirements are the same for every Christian in every Christian endeavor.” Should read: “These broad requirements are the same for every Christian in every common endeavor.”
My bad.
LikeLike
RL, I absolutely agree. Thanks for putting it this way.
LikeLike
What you’re trying to say to me is that we must obey the Law in our common endeavors, but that the Law is silent about those common endeavors. I find that to be a distortion of the Scriptural word usage.
Jeff, I wonder if you think the Bible is silent in any way. It’s almost as if you think to suggest that the Bible is silent about anything is a distortion. DGH speculated on this above, and you said that “The Bible speaks to all human activities,” which seems to suggest that you really have no room for the idea that the Bible is in any way silent about certain things we do. At least, I can’t think of any other implication to your starting point. (You said that to say this isn’t to say that there is some cryptic code for plumbers to crack in order to figure out how to turn a wrench. Fair enough, even if the language you insist on employing seems to confuse the meaning you wish to convey to in fact convey such a thing.)
Nevertheless, what do you make of the old Reformed priciple about speaking only where God speaks and being silent where he is silent? What does a principle like that even mean if the Bible in fact speaks to all human activities and thus isn’t silent on certain human activity? How can you affirm RL’s point that “Claiming that something other than personal morality makes one form of a job more Christian than another is a sin against your brother’s liberty” when you think the Bible speaks to all human activity? If it speaks to all human activity then it must speak to my choice of fiscal policy and yours, my way of fixing a pipe and yours. And if yours is X and mine is Y, and if the Bible cannot affirm two opposing ideas but must only side with one, then how can you really affirm liberty? From where I sit, the Bible speaks to a believer about his doctrinal and moral convictions and practices but is silent on his plumbing and politics. There is only one way to believe about the Trinity, there is no room for liberty; there is only one way to be sexual, there is no room for liberty. But there are lotsa ways to fix pipes and arrange public life, and that’s because the Bible is speaks to the former, silent about the latter.
LikeLike
Jeff, this is why we don’t get very far. We don’t even agree on the first point of your syllogism — “the Bible speaks to all human activities.” That is precisely what is at issue and yet you start with it in your logic.
Here is how non-common sensical it is, and it comes from the example you give of the spy caught in adultery. If the CIA fired that spy for adultery and the company had no provisions in its statements of duties and expectations — if company policy were SILENT — the fired spy could well argue that he had been fired illegitimately (though how he’d make that case if his wife were in the courtroom is another matter). This is what silence means. The CIA in this case has no stated policy about adultery. The analogy is that the Bible has no stated policy on spying. That’s why it’s a matter of common sense to say the Bible is silent about plumbing.
Buried beneath this issue is another related to the worldview and biblicist perspectives — whether or not we may recognize that people have multiple identities and that the Bible only governs some of them. In this case, the spy may be a Christian, a husband, and a spy. Different rules govern each area of endeavor. But when the Bible speaks to everything, then it’s hard to see the different nature of each vocation.
LikeLike
DGH and Zrim: Jeff, this is why we don’t get very far. We don’t even agree on the first point of your syllogism — “the Bible speaks to all human activities.†That is precisely what is at issue and yet you start with it in your logic.
Here’s where the first point comes from:
So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. — 1 Cor 10.31
Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. — Eph 6.7-8.
Here, the Bible says words — speaking — which concern everything we do, which is identical to all human activities.
It seems a plain matter of fact to me: The Bible speaks to all human activities, qualifying them in these two ways:
(1) We are to glorify God in all activities,
(2) We will be rewarded for whatever good we do.
I could add a bit more — like “whatever is not of faith is sin” — but this seems sufficient.
That my interpretation is neither “worldviewist” nor “biblicist” is confirmed by the Confession:
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
And by the way in which the Catechism treats the Law, as intrusive into common matters (I won’t multiply the examples again).
Seems to me that (1) is self-evident.
DGH: Here is how non-common sensical it is, and it comes from the example you give of the spy caught in adultery. If the CIA fired that spy for adultery and the company had no provisions in its statements of duties and expectations — if company policy were SILENT — the fired spy could well argue that he had been fired illegitimately (though how he’d make that case if his wife were in the courtroom is another matter). This is what silence means.
Exactly. That’s what silence means. So now, ask this question: if the pastor were dealing with the spy caught in adultery, would he hold that spy accountable or not accountable for his adultery?
We agree (I presume), accountable.
Why? Because the Bible forbids adultery.
What of the defense, “I did it for my work. The Bible is silent about my work”?
And the pastor responds, “No, the Bible says Don’t Commit Adultery, which applies to all of life.”
The fact that the command to not commit adultery extends into the workplace proves that Scripture is not silent about what goes on in the workplace.
Else, according to your reasoning, the man could claim that the Scripture is silent about spycraft, and that the adultery was simply a part of his work.
Your own example hangs itself!
DGH: …whether or not we may recognize that people have multiple identities and that the Bible only governs some of them. In this case, the spy may be a Christian, a husband, and a spy.
People can have different roles, but they remain one person. They do not take off the Christian role and put on the spy role. The Christian role transcends, is normative in, all roles, whether father, spy, or science teacher.
LikeLike
I actually went through and read all the posts to try to determine if progress had been made in any of the conflicting positions (the bible is silent about creation based cultural, vocational endeavors therefore we have much Christian liberty to function in this realm or the bible speaks implicitly to these activities and our liberty is much more confined within certain “Christian” boundaries which are determined by our world and life views). Neither side will still admit that they are saying almost the same thing and both have “red flags” that will not allow them to give up any territory in their respective positions. This is not a matter of salvation where minor points may lead to grave dangers (involving our good works or our various degrees of obeying the law of God) so I fail to see the importance of spending so much time and effort on it. We have the liberty here to agree to disagree. I guess the way we answer this debate determines how much priority and effort we put into our ecclesiology or our life in our cultural and vocational endeavours. I am persuaded that those who put the priority on their ecclesiology will be more fruitful in their cultural endeavors because they are conforming to the biblical types, shadows and patterns. Therefore they are putting their trust in the work of the Creator rather than our narcissistic based beliefs that we actually can take credit for the way God chooses to use our cultural endeavors for His providential purposes. So, then again maybe it is important to hash out these disagreements. But I fail to see that much progress has been made. Maybe it is a matter of the first point of the syllogism “the bible speaks to all human activities.”
I am curious as to see how Paul will answer the true physicists that have been posting and the inherent tendency in Paul to be quick and harsh in pointing out others less than satisfactory intellectual virtues, ie., the inability to argue according to deductive logic and the inability to see their own fallacies or what the major fallacies even are. Personally, I am not sure how important it is to know how to argue according to deductive logic because so few actually spend the time and have the discipline to make sure that what they say conforms to the art of arguing effectively. But that may be an intellectual virtue we all should spend more time developing. So, again it becomes a matter of priority and what we should be spending our time on. Christ is the Logos of God so maybe there is a priority here. I am not sure if this Logos can be equated to thinking according to good deductive logic because the Logos of God is a person. I guess I will have to reflect on that a bit more.
LikeLike
The point of contention here is that our logic needs to be under the Logos of God.
LikeLike
Jeff, it’s appreciated that you’re either backing away from or never intended to claim that there was a distinctively Christian [participle]. But your current use of the Christian adjective, faithfulness to the Law, appears to render Bill Clinton as a comparatively Christian king (or at least less unfaithful Christian king) than David wrt to the extent of their respective infidelities.
LikeLike
The fact that the command to not commit adultery extends into the workplace proves that Scripture is not silent about what goes on in the workplace. Else, according to your reasoning, the man could claim that the Scripture is silent about spycraft, and that the adultery was simply a part of his work.
Jeff, nobody is saying the biblical commands don’t extend into the workplace. In fact, the opposite is being said, so I don’t see how 2k reasoning allows anybody to seriously make the claim you suggest. The point about silence isn’t to give cover to the things God has clearly condemned, but rather to maximize liberty on activities where he is dead silent. You might recall that it’s the anti-2kers who like to charge unfaithfulness for failing to protest abortion clinics. But in 2k-ville it’s said that you may or may not choose to protest abortion clinics, but if you chhose to just don’t break any commandments whilst doing so. And that’s because the law of God goes everywhere. Now, maybe you agree with all that, but your interloction sure makes it seem like you have some sort of problem with it.
LikeLike
Jeff, even Christians have different Christian roles. The Christian father is not supposed to spare the rod. The Christian neighbor is to turn the other cheek. The Christian father does not turn the other cheek to a wayward son. So please, let’s have a little specificity about one size fits all.
If the spy says that adultery is part of his work, then the pastor says, you can’t be a spy because part of being a spy (at least) involves duties that a Christian may not do. The Bible doesn’t speak to spying. It speaks to adultery. If adultery happens to be on the list of duties for spying, plumbing, baking, or banking, then Christians may not be spies, bakers, bankers, or plumbers.
This still doesn’t mean that the Bible speaks to plumbing, baking, etc. It speaks to adultery.
And the “life” in the Confession is not what you construe it to mean. Life throughout the confession goes with “eternal life.” I actually think the divines use the two interchangeably.
But again, if the Bible speaks to all of life, then why no chapter on plumbing or baking or banking or spying? This is why biblicism drives me nuts. You want the Bible to speak to all of life, but then the church, which ministers God’s word, is silent on most of the activities involved in secular callings. It seems to be a classic case of having and eating cake.
LikeLike
Small things, then large later.
Mike K: Thanks for the appreciation. The latter is the case: despite vigorous attempts to push me into that bin, I’ve never argued that there is a uniquely Christian way of doing things. Rather I’ve argued – and still do – that Scripture speaks to all of life in certain ways, and leaves liberty to the extent that it does not speak.
So Christians in the common life carry Scripture with them as a framework, but have liberty to fill in the details of that framework.
Zrim: Jeff, nobody is saying the biblical commands don’t extend into the workplace. In fact, the opposite is being said, so I don’t see how 2k reasoning allows anybody to seriously make the claim you suggest.
You and I agree that 2k-ers believe that biblical commands extend into the workplace.
On the basis of that common agreement, it makes common sense therefore to say that Scripture is not silent about the workplace.
So my claim is, Scripture is not silent about the common sphere. And I’m arguing, on a basis that you and I share, that this is plain good sense.
DGH: And the “life†in the Confession is not what you construe it to mean. Life throughout the confession goes with “eternal life.†I actually think the divines use the two interchangeably.
Not so. Yes: there are some places in the Confession in which “life” is used to mean eternal life (e.g.: WCoF 7.2,3). No: there are other places in which “life” is used to mean our life in this world. In fact, the phrase “this life” is often used to indicate this.
So which is in view in 1.2 and 1.6, “the rule of faith and life” and “all things necessary for faith and life”? I consider 19.6 to be determinative: It links the Law of God as a “rule of life” — same phrase — with “this life” as well as the next.
So I consider the phrase “rule of life” to mean (or at least include) this life.
And again: look at how the Catechism uses the Scripture. It treats the decalogue as a rule for this life, intruding into common matters.
Besides, stop and think about the implication of your reading. If the Law is a “rule of life” — meaning eternal life — then you would be making the Law the rule by which we acquire eternal life.
Can we agree that we don’t want to go there?
LikeLike
We may agree, Jeff, in some sense, but I think the language we choose to use makes all the difference to carry the meaning. I would not say, for example, that “Scripture speaks to all of life” because I think that is simply confusing and just not precise enough. I think it better to say that “Scripture speaks to its adherents who inhabit all of life.” Now, maybe you think this more pedantic than precise, but I have to admit that keeping in mind you also roundly reject as much as I affirm the sufficiency of general revelation to govern civil life, it seems to me necessary to draw some of this out better.
I also think it better because more often than not those who reject the sufficiency of general revelation to govern civil life (or the insufficiency of Scripture to norm civil life) or say that “Scripture speaks to all of life” also say things like “All of life is worship” or they have that adjectival pattern of speaking of “Christian you-name-it” as opposed to “Christians who do you-name-it.” Again, and I know I’m a broken record here but I have my reasons, I know what Christians doing medicine is, but I’ve no idea what Christian medicine could be.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I respect your concerns and I understand, I think, why you don’t want to say that “Scripture speaks to all of life.” In your view, those who speak that way can carelessly move into thinking that
(a) Scripture gives us (in a cryptic sense) a detailed set of instructions for all of life. Thus people might seek to mine Scripture not merely for broad goals in plumbing, but specific guidance about whether to use copper or brass.
(b) One’s own pious opinions are tantamount to Scriptural teaching. Thus people might be tempted to say, “I think Scripture says X; therefore everyone must acquiesce to my interpretation.”
To avoid these, you wish to draw a bright line: if the area in question is not specifically faith or worship, then believers should not expect the Scripture to say anything about it. Your desire is that the bright line will warn people off of (a) and (b).
Is that a fair summary?
LikeLike
John Y: Neither side will still admit that they are saying almost the same thing and both have “red flags†that will not allow them to give up any territory in their respective positions.
You’ve hit the nail on the head: pragmatically, our positions are very close. Here’s why I consider this important:
(1) As a matter of apologetic, I feel that the pc-2k net sweeps up too many people who are not “transformationalist” and, frankly, judges them.
I believe it is important to show clearly that one may believe “the Scripture speaks to all of life” — in the qualified way in which I’ve been speaking — and yet not be one who wishes to take narcissistic pride in one’s “cultural achievements.”
I would like for DGH and Zrim to be open to the possibility that Christian liberty and pc-2k are not synonymous; that one might hold to the former without the latter.
In other words, since the Confession explicitly teaches Christian liberty, but does not teach that “Scripture is silent on plumbing”, I would like to defend the idea that one can hold the former and not the latter.
(2) As a matter of helping to shepherd Christ’s church, I think that pc-2ker’s concerns are legitimate, but their rhetoric hinders getting a wider hearing.
Let’s take the Bayly brothers for a moment. Here’s a representative of their teaching:
Every man who is a feminist is so because he desires to avoid the weight of glory God has placed on him.
A father doesn’t want to do the hard work of vetting his daughter’s choice of a husband, so he pays for her degrees and establishes her in a profession where she’ll be impervious to any husband’s future failures. A husband doesn’t want to do the hard work of silencing his wife in the church, so he argues that women need a place at the table, too, and that good churches will enfranchise women’s voices. Elders don’t want to do the hard work of training their daughters how to dress modestly and conduct themselves in a feminine manner, so they condemn all efforts to teach and encourage modesty or feminine deference within the church as legalism, patronization of women, and masculine insecurity. — Fleeing Manhood
DGH and I agree, I think, that this is nonsense (sorry, Tim). But why?
DGH would say, Because Tim is trying to apply Scripture to areas outside the purview of the church.
But this gets us nowhere. Tim will come back and say, No, marriage and family are definitely within the purview of the Church.
So the pc-2k big gun, the separation of cult and culture, fails to hit the target.
I say: cut to the chase and ask, Is Tim’s analysis a good and necessary inference from Scripture? And clearly it is not. Tim, not being a mind-reader, is reaching way beyond the evidence to be able to speak to why men pay for their daughters’ degrees, or try to enfranchise women’s voices in church, or oppose this or that effort to impose modesty.
Because his analysis rests on faulty assumptions, it therefore does not rise meet the “good and necessary inference” test. Hence, he’s violated Christian liberty, simple as that. The two kingdoms are neither here nor there.
In my view, pc-2ker’s would have a more trenchant weapon to hand if they majored on Christian liberty and minored on the two kingdoms.
(3) I am not willing to say, “Scripture is silent about X” because, as the above discussion shows, Scripture raises its hand at various points in our common life and says, “I have something to say about this.”
In my view, the kind of distinction DGH wishes to draw (“If spycraft includes adultery, then the Christian may not be a spy; but Scripture speaks to adultery, not spycraft”) is simply awkwardly reasoned. If in fact spycraft includes adultery, then Scripture has something to say about a Christian’s participation in spycraft.
And of course, the adulterous spy is an “out-there” example, as is usual in these discussions, for the purpose of illustration.
In real life, Scripture has something to say about honest business dealings, and the love of money, and other issues that are a part of what plumbers do. Hence, Scripture has something to say about plumbing.
It’s just a matter of saying what we really mean.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff,
I see your point and I think it is a valid one. I still am probably being subconsciously influenced by my days at Calvin College where I was indoctrinated in a Kuyperian and Dooyweerdian transformational perspective on culture in my Business and Economics classes. So, I have a tendency to have some problems with overlapping the 2K boundaries of cult and culture. And as you say so clearly it is hard not to overlap and the distinctions between cult and culture are not always as easy to distinguish as some 2K advocates would make one believe. Your input has been a valuable contribution and needs to be considered.
I also think Paul has summarized some of this well in his maximalist and minimalist blog about the various positions of overlap between cult and culture. I found that to be helpful in trying to distinguish the various approaches between different branches in the Church. I am still not clear as to why and when the pc-2kers (as you call them) raise the red flags and their reasons for doing so. I think your red flags were explained in your last post and I thought the Bayly example was an excellent one.
LikeLike
Jeff, I think that is fair summary, more or less. But even beyond those concerns, I think what is important to point out is that what drives the 2k outlook is its sense of the ecclesiastical, which is something different from the cultural (the pietist and even the doctrinalist, though I am of the mind that the ecclesiastical and doctrinal are two great tastes that go great together in ways it just doesn’t with the other two). And I think that this is why, for the most part, 2k tends to not get a very wide reception, because by and large we have a church that is pretty a- or under-ecclesiastical. We certainly have a culture that is. And it could be that a church that has (ironically enough) lost its sense of the ecclesiastical is a church unduly influenced by the very culture it wishes to transform or whatever.
2k wants to emphasize the antithesis between cult and culture because it takes seriously the stark antithesis found in the NT. Some call that a “toxic dualism,†but I think it’s simply a way to be obedient to a plain reading of the text.
I would like for DGH and Zrim to be open to the possibility that Christian liberty and pc-2k are not synonymous; that one might hold to the former without the latter.
Sorry, but I have to dig in here, Jeff. For my part, I really don’t see much of an antidote to even Reformed legalism except for pc-2k. Perhaps it’s because my neo-cals talk about education and politics the way my fundamentalists talk about substance use and worldly amusement, and both recoil at pc-2k for what seems like the same reasons: the Bible has a direct bearing on and obvious implication for whatever particular worldly cares we have, or as some might say, “The Bible speaks to all of life.†From what I have ever witnessed, all one has to do is start with that premise and it’s not too long before consciences are bound to lesser or greater degrees.
And, I don’t normally do this, but to wax sort of personal at no extra charge: it was what is being called pc-2k that was my gateway into the Reformed tradition out of broad funda-evangelicalism many years ago; it articulated everything I found so spiritually suffocating and what it meant to actually live free under the unfettered gospel and not just talk about it while being unconvinced that Christianity really had anything to do with the sort of freedom and liberty spoken of in the Bible. So to ask me to consider the specific possibility that Christian liberty and pc-2k are not synonymous is like asking me to consider the general possibility that the Reformed tradition isn’t synonymous with the biblical witness of the unfettered gospel or isn’t the superior Christian expression on the good earth.
LikeLike
OK. I can appreciate the experience. And I certainly don’t begrudge you the ability to see clearly the liberty we have in Jesus! Praise the Lord.
For what it’s worth, I do come into contact with some of what you’ve described as the neo-Cal approach to ministry here and there, and I appreciate your concerns about it.
2k wants to emphasize the antithesis between cult and culture because it takes seriously the stark antithesis found in the NT.
OK, so here’s a basic question I’ve not been clear on. The NT (esp. John) draws a stark distinction between the “children of God” and “the children of darkness.” The two kingdoms in the NT are at war, and the magistrate of Rom 13 is something separate.
But in 2k thinking, the two kingdoms are the church and the common.
Why the shift, and doesn’t this have implications about reading out the theology of the church vis-a-vis the world?
This is not to say that I deny the two jurisdictions of church and magistrate — I’ve just always been confused as to why we are so quick to call them “two kingdoms” (I know Calvin does it, also, and Luther), when the two kingdoms in the NT are something different altogether.
So let’s take the “stark antithesis.” Is that the stark antithesis between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan? Or is it the stark antithesis between the church and civil government? And if the latter, then where is that in the NT? (other than “my kingdom is not of this world”, which is rather broad…)
Not asking for the sake of dispute, just been percolating the question in the back of my head.
LikeLike
Jeff, 19.1 talks about “life” as the promised reward for maintaining the covenant of works. So you have to concede that “life” in that context does not include plumbing. As for your reference in 19.6, I just don’t see any reason to go beyond the idea that the 10 commandments summaries God’s law and Christians are to follow this law in all walks of life. But that law say nothing about baking or plumbing. Please tell me what is at stake in maintaining that the law speaks to all of life, even where I place the picture frames on my wall. After all, Jeff, you are using the word “all.” Then you say some. But you haven’t owned up to Christian aerobics in the name of Scripture speaking to all of life.
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m not sure what’s wrong with judging. 2k is judged all the time. I don’t mind the judgment if it is informed or smart or theologically astute. What I mind are judgments which throw around shibboleths like “every square inch” or “worldview” and beg the question that is at the dock. I am not saying you are guilty of this. What you seem to be guilty of is a stubborn attachment to an idea — the Bible speaks to all of life — which dies a thousand qualifications — like the Bible speaks to all of life some of the time.
I disagree with Tim Bayly’s reasoning not because of his abuse of Scripture but because of his abuse of charity. He seems to listen to too much Rush Limbaugh and seems to get caught up in his vituperative rhetoric. What he fails to do is reason along the way and may see the need for clarification, qualification, or even to throw in a “seems” or “apparently” here and there. I find this sort of rhetoric exceedingly unbecoming in a minister of the gospel.
BTW, not all of marriage or family life is under the purview of the church and this is the mistake that Dr. K. makes with Christian schools. Believing parents have the responsibility to rear their children in the faith. They have liberty to do so through a variety of means. Dr. K’s logic (again faulty like Tim’s) is that Christian schools are the only biblical means for carrying out a parental responsibility. So much for biblical authority. So much for Christian liberty. The Bible is silent about schools. It is not silent about rearing children in the faith. Rearing children in the faith, last time I checked, is not synonymous with schools, otherwise saints in Calvin’s Reformed Jerusalem were failing in their biblical responsibilities. The Academy was not for toddlers.
So like Zrim I don’t know how you get to xian liberty apart from 2k. That’s also how I learned it by studying Machen. In the case of prohibition he argued that Christians had liberty in the common realm of the state about the best means to counteract drunkenness. In other words, drunkenness is a sin. But the Bible reveals nothing about policy or legislation to discourage or punish it in the civil realm. The church does have a mechanism of church discipline. The state may try a variety of measures. But to call any of those measures Christian, or to have the church endorse them is a violation of Christian liberty. This conclusion necessarily involves a distinction between the jurisdictions of the church and the state.
These institutions are not antithetically related. If you notice, both the church and the magistrate are appointed by God. So how could they be antithetical? But they execute God’s purposes in different ways, the magistrate carrying out providential designs, the church redemptive.
In which case the 2k doctrine is finally about maintaining the difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. In other words, dualism is part and parcel of any Augustinian and Pauline account of Christianity. And all efforts to blur that duality — from Tim Bayly’s bloated transformationalism to Jeff’s qualified biblicism — invites losing sight of the gospel and the proper task of the visible church, which is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation (WCF 25.2).
LikeLike
DGH: What you seem to be guilty of is a stubborn attachment to an idea — the Bible speaks to all of life — which dies a thousand qualifications — like the Bible speaks to all of life some of the time.
Actually, just one qualification: The Bible speaks to all of life, in some ways (but not in others). Simple, accurate, no crossed fingers, no over-generalizations like “Scripture is silent about the common sphere.”
So in the case of the family (which is in the common sphere), Scripture has more to say; in the case of plumbing (which is also in the common sphere), less.
Zrim: 2k wants to emphasize the antithesis between cult and culture because it takes seriously the stark antithesis found in the NT.
DGH: These institutions are not antithetically related. If you notice, both the church and the magistrate are appointed by God. So how could they be antithetical? But they execute God’s purposes in different ways, the magistrate carrying out providential designs, the church redemptive.
Y’all should talk more. I thought I was supposed to be the confused and confusing one?
LikeLike
Where’s Waldo, no Where’s Paul- Yikes; pc 2K- What’s up with that? I am just trying to interject some cathartic release.
LikeLike
Jeff, re the antithesis conundrum, the answer is triadalism. There is at once in this present (and final) exilic age a stark antithesis between the temporal and eternal and a category for that which is neither holy nor unholy but simply common. When the future (and final) theocratic age comes the common sphere will give way to the stark antithesis. So, what 2k is trying to do is give justice to both the antithesis and the common such that the Sabbath actually means something as it separates the children of light from those of darkness but also gives them both a place and a way to peacefully co-habit the other six.
DVD’s “NL2K†is helpful for tracing out how Luther’s 2k built upon Augustine’s “two cities†but developed it in such a way that he took a more positive (albeit no less antithetical) view of the magistrate, whereas Augustine tended to have a dimmer or more skeptical view of the inherent goodness or God-appointedness of the magistrate. For Luther, the magistrate is at once the dispenser of law, which is antithetical to gospel, but also God’s servant in doing so. So they are antithetical in terms of their nature, but not in terms of their author.
LikeLike
One more thing, Jeff. Have you not noticed that a lot of American Protestants believe in Christian America, or taking back the culture, or establishing Christ’s Lordship over the nation? And you think 2k is a questionable position? It looks to me that it is more needed that Christian liberty. And if the rhetoric puts you off, could it be that you’re so used to a biblicistic, transformational verbiage that 2k sounds threatening. On the other hand, to use the language of anti-2k in order to gain a hearing is to lose the meaning of 2k.
So why do you think pragmatically our positions are very close? We likely disagree about subscription, ordination, worship, Lord’s Day observance and about the Christian’s duties in the civil realm. That doesn’t mean we are enemies. But if we are so close, why do we spend so much time expressing disagreements?
LikeLike
DGH: But if we are so close, why do we spend so much time expressing disagreements?
Good question. I do perceive you as someone worth engaging.
And sometimes, I just can’t help myself. 🙂
Why “ordination”? I was surprised to see that on the list.
—
I have a different kind of 2k proposal. I recognize that it’s different from yours, but take a minute to take it on its merits.
(1) There are two jurisdictions, loci of authority: church and state.
(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; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. ”
(3)
“God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates to be under Him, over the people, for His own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers. ”
(4) When an officer of the church speaks, he therefore speaks as to matters of faith or conscience. Thus, if he speaks to social issues, his voice should be taken as if it were a matter of faith.
(5) Thus, the pronouncements of a minister should be subject to a Strict Scrutiny test: The pronouncement is not binding unless it be a good and necessary inference from Scripture.
I’ll listen to your thoughts and then defend the ideas a bit.
LikeLike
Jeff,
What would you say to someone in your congregation who asks you why the Bible offers no cure for cancer or other fatal deseases? Once you tell them the Scriptures are silent to this, how do you answer why the Scriptures are silent on this?
Thanks
LikeLike
Jeff, you might appreciated, even if you don’t agree with, Dr. Van Drunen’s newest book, Living In God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture. He works through these issues in a thoughtful, clear way.
P.S. I get no royalties on his book sales. Just thought it’s a great book.
LikeLike
Todd,
I wouldn’t begin to answer that question without first understanding why it is being asked.
Is this one of the several cancer sufferers in the church who wants to understand the reason for his suffering?
Is this a member who wants to understand why going to the doctor is not contrary to praying for the sick?
Is this a member who wants to understand whether it is lawful to treat cancer instead of “allow God’s providence to take its course” (a la faith healers, perhaps)?
Is this a physician who wonders whether he’s missed something in Scripture?
Other?
I’m not trying to dodge, but the “silence” you speak of is not silence in all of those circumstances. So it’s important to understand which circumstance you have in mind before we start assuming silence.
LikeLike
Jeff,
I don’t see anything disagreeable with your proposal for 2k except that you think it is yours. Words to this effect are what some of us have been arguing all along, meaning that officers in the church should shut up about civil affairs because they are only to minister God’s word and it is silent about civil law and policies. For that reason, my only quibble is over an officer speaking to a civil concern as a matter of faith. The only circumstances in which this would apply conceivably would be those where church members were going to hurt their souls if they assumed certain public duties — like posing as a whore to gain intelligence secrets.
LikeLike
Jeff,
None of your examples, just someone who wants to know why the Bible does not address these physical problems since God does care for the body as well as the soul. I understand the potential emotional reasons for questions, but it is the theology and how you would explain it I am looking for.
LikeLike
DGH: Noted, but I don’t think of it as mine, so much as trying to reflect what the Confession is saying.
Here’s the main difference I see: by focusing on the speaker, I leave open the question of “What does Scripture speak to?” There’s nothing in there about Scripture being silent here or there; the focus is instead on jurisdictions.
And yes, I recognize that this is similar to what you’ve been arguing all along … that’s the point of trying to find common ground. 🙂
LikeLike
Todd, it’s a good question, but a huge question. I’ve scrapped two answers now.
Here’s the short of it: As is typical in Scripture, the norms are specified, but the details are not.
An analogy can be seen in how Scripture addresses the relationship between husband and wife. Scripture lays out a broad strategic goal for husbands: Love your wives as Christ loved the church. The details of that love are left unspecified — and indeed are quite different from couple to couple. The norm is clear; the implementation is free.
Likewise, Scripture lays out a broad command: Care for those in need, which the church has traditionally interpreted to include care for the sick. The implementation of that care is, however, left unspecified.
We could speculate about the reasons for this: Liberty? Focus on salvation instead of earthly cares? Incompatible with the method of inspiration? (Imagine Paul writing, “and then you take a … pipet?” … talk about hapax legomena!) All of the above?
But the fact is that Scripture does this for all manner of areas: norms are laid out, but ways and means are left open.
I see the lack of “cures for cancer” as typical of that pattern.
—
I know that you’ll be less than satisfied. I was “supposed” to talk about how the cure for cancer is secondary to salvation, etc. And it’s true — the cure for cancer *is* secondary to salvation. I was “supposed” to speculate that if God healed all our diseases now, we would have no taste for the life to come. And that’s probably also true.
But the fact is, Scripture does take the time to tell us to pray for the sick and anoint with oil. So the issue of sickness is on the table, is addressed in Scripture. Why then does Scripture not go further and give us the keys to healing the sick? I would say, because Scripture typically provides norms but not details.
So Scripture addresses sickness without exhaustively specifying what to do about it.
How would you answer the question?
LikeLike
Jeff, but the silence of Scripture is among the reasons for silence. If Reformed seminary students these days spent more time with Old School Presbyterians — even Machen — than with the Dutch neo-Cals or their progeny, they’d have encountered a set of arguments that limit the church’s power to those matters about which Scripture speaks. Where the Bible is silent the church may not go. That means — no juggling.
BTW, I appreciate your answer to Todd, but I wonder if it does justice to the norms that inform AMA doctors who prescribe chemotherapy for cancer and those of a homeopathic bent. Are the Bible’s norms organic or mechanical? Sometimes the norms, like God, are in the details.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Again, you are answering the what but not the why. The questioner already knew the what – that Scripture doesn’t give details on curing cancer, but not the why. That was the question. I will answer but I’m still wondering how you’d answer the why, especially since Scripture does give us everything we need sufficicently to know God in salvation and to lead a godly life. Are you suggesting we have as little details about salvation and sanctification as we do medical cures? I’m not laying a trap I’m wondering how you answer this question without distinguishing kingdoms.
LikeLike
DGH: Are the Bible’s norms organic or mechanical? Sometimes the norms, like God, are in the details.
Exactly so. This is one of the main reasons that I resist saying that Scripture is “silent.” It *does* speak — but in a norm-setting way, not a detail-specific way.
Sometimes, but not all the time, the norm requires us to take a certain stance towards the details; sometimes not.
So saying “Scripture is silent” would imply that the norms never interfere with the details — Scripture is over here; the concerns of the world are over there; Scripture has nothing to say (that is what silent means) about the concerns of the world.
But instead, since the norms and the details can overlap, there are times when the Scripture speaks. That’s what I’m trying to get across.
LikeLike
Todd: Again, you are answering the what but not the why.
You’re right. As I indicated above, we can speculate about the why, but since Scripture doesn’t say why, we might be on thin ice.
So the reason could be a 2k reason. Or, it could be that God intends for maximal liberty in some areas (without reference to “kingdoms”). Or it could be that God’s chosen means of inspiration, relying on the background knowledge of the writers of Scripture, made addressing those kinds of questions impossible.
Or, as is often the case with God, He coordinated all three of these at once. Or even something else that I haven’t thought of.
I want to be very clear here: One of the issues that I have with pc-2k is that it is a teaching about “faith” (as in WCoF 20.2); and as such it requires the Strict Scrutiny test of good and necessary inference.
While the 2k answer to Why is plausible, it is not a good and necessary inference. Therefore, in my view, we ought not press it on the consciences of others.
I think silence about the Why, or at least a recognition that we can do no more than speculate, is the best option.
LikeLike
Jeff,
So Scripture shows no priority to the condition and solution for the soul’s spiritual problem over the body’s physical problem? And if it does, we don’t know why this is from the Bible itself?
LikeLike
Priority, yes, absolutely. The problem is drawing good and necessary inferences from that priority.
How do you connect the dots from “priority” to “silence about methods of curing cancer” … without also arguing that James should not tell us to pray for the sick?
The problem is that silence is an absolute word. And arguing from silence is particularly treacherous.
LikeLike
But, Jeff, arguing from silence is precisely what I think you are doing when you want to say that the Bible speaks to plumbing and spying. Why is arguing from silence treacherous for me but not for you?
LikeLike
How am I arguing from silence (especially when I’m arguing against silence)? Refer back to the syllogism. Where’s the argument from silence?
LikeLike
Jeff you argue that the Bible speaks to plumbing. The Bible speaks to honesty. You apply that to plumbing. The bible is silent about washers and vice grips. So the Bible is silent about plumbing but you say that it still speaks to plumbing. How is that not arguing from silence? The very idea that the Bible speaks to all of life is bound up with incredible silence in Scripture on most of life.
LikeLike
DGH, I’m sorry to be repetitive, but plumbing is one of the “all things” that the Scripture explicitly says to do to the glory of God.
That’s not “silence”, that’s direct good and necessary inference — modus ponens, in fact.
An “argument from silence” has a completely different form — an argument from lack of contrary evidence, or that tries to derive a conclusion from the fact of silence. Someone here has been trying to draw conclusions from silence, but it hasn’t been me.
What Scripture *is* silent about is the details of plumbing. Those details are free — unless they conflict with the norms of Scripture.
LikeLike
Jeff,
This is why debating a perspectivalist tends to pose a problem. You seem so afraid to make distinctions that you look for any tiny exception to negate the point. The only place you see the Bible speaking to medicine is telling elders to pray for the sick and you negate the clear distinction in Scripture between the body and soul, between eternal and temporary matters. I don’t know how to debate that kind of thinking. This is why Frame’s confusion of law and gospel is so, well, confusing.
LikeLike
Todd:
Think about it like this: if a distinction is always having to carve out exceptions for itself, then it’s not the right distinction.
I don’t consider praying for the sick as a tiny exception. Nor do I find that Jesus is “silent” on temporal matters, but instead makes a big deal out of things like giving water to the thirsty.
I’m offering up what appears to be a better distinction, one which does not admit of so many exceptions. The “cost” is dropping your favored framework — but I ask you to consider: is that framework actually taught in Scripture, or is it pious opinion?
LikeLike
Jeff,
Can you see that your view of all things and Bible-speak leads to great confusion:
The says do all things to the glory of God.
The Bible says that Christ saves all things.
You can pour almost anything you want into these categories, and lo and behold people are — Christian aerobics, urban ministry, word and deed.
So how do avoid liberalism — that is, that kind of Christian gloss on everything that becomes so vague as to lose touch with the real things? I am not saying you are there. But I’ve seen where this rhetoric goes and it wasn’t pretty.
BTW, you still haven’t answered for me what’s at stake with saying the Bible is silent on most things.
LikeLike
DGH: The Bible says that Christ saves all things.
I’m puzzling for the reference here. Forgive my ignorance. Do you have John 3.16 in mind, with perhaps a Charles Hodgian interpretation?
DGH: The [Bible] says do all things to the glory of God.
You can pour almost anything you want into these categories, and lo and behold people are [doing] — Christian aerobics, urban ministry, word and deed.
(1) What stops us from pouring anything we want, at least from the pulpit, is the Strict Scrutiny test that I mentioned above.
From the pulpit, I can tell people to eat and drink to the glory of God. I can tell people that all food is clean and to be consumed with thanksgiving. From the pulpit, I can say that drinking alcohol for minors is not glorifying to God (because it is against the law and thus transgresses Rom 13). From the pulpit, I cannot say that drinking alcohol for adults is one way or the other.
(2) For individuals, I don’t see a problem with intentionally attempting to glorify God in one’s aerobics, urban ministry, or deeds.
That is, I don’t see a problem with individuals exercising their liberty towards fulfilling the norms laid out in Scripture. As long as they understand that their exercise of liberty does not become the de-facto standard for others’ exercise of liberty.
DGH: So how do avoid liberalism — that is, that kind of Christian gloss on everything that becomes so vague as to lose touch with the real things? I am not saying you are there.
I’d like to think that I focus fairly hard on the real things. As I mentioned, my wife and I have a slogan: “The first kindness is competence.” Meaning, that focusing on the real things and getting them right is the way in which we love our neighbors.
I’m not saying we’re perfect; just that neither of us is particularly interested in the “Christian gloss.”
DGH: But I’ve seen where this rhetoric goes and it wasn’t pretty.
I hear you. At the same time, I’ve seen where swinging the pendulum gets us, and that’s not pretty either.
DGH: BTW, you still haven’t answered for me what’s at stake with saying the Bible is silent on most things.
I thought I did, above. In case it wasn’t clear:
(1) The Bible isn’t “silent”; it lays out broad norms without specific details. So there’s a simple factual issue involved. Which leads to …
(2) The factual issue blunts your message about Christian liberty for those who see and are concerned about it.
(3) And further, since the Bible is not in fact silent about the things that we do, the claim that it *is* silent, and that we *ought* to see it that way, lays a burden on peoples’ consciences that they shouldn’t have to bear.
Think about CVD’s experience with threats of discipline for his involvement in the public square. There’s a direct (but badly reasoned) line from “The Bible is silent about public life” to “Christians who get involved in public life are WRONG and should be disciplined.”
LikeLike
Think about CVD’s experience with threats of discipline for his involvement in the public square. There’s a direct (but badly reasoned) line from “The Bible is silent about public life†to “Christians who get involved in public life are WRONG and should be disciplined.â€
That’s quite true. That the Bible is silent on public life does not at all lead to the conclusion that it’s wrong for Christians to get involved in public life (though liberty says if some don’t want to then shut up and leave them alone about it, quit piously badgering them about their “civil duty†the way some badger smokers to quit). But it cuts both ways. When it is said that because the Bible is silent on politics and therefore the church ought not speak even to political tyrants the response is that such silence is tacit approval of said tyrants. I won’t call this guy’s involvement in public life wrong if you don’t say that guy’s silence is approval.
LikeLike
I don’t.
LikeLike
Jeff, I don’t know what you’re talking about regarding where 2k leads as not being pretty. If you are referring to Nazi Germany, then again, please include Nazi Netherlands where the Dutch Reformed also capitulated and didn’t rise up.
But how would they rise up if you were their pastor, since you say that it is glorifying to God to submit to the magistrate. I don’t mean to engage in gotcha, but this is where I believe the language of everything giving glory to God gets rather imprecise in a conscience binding way. Because you believe not drinking in accord with state law is glorifying, you think you may preach about it. Well, if obeying state law is glorifying of God, then you just lost your chance to preach against Hitler.
So why not leave the state or its policies out of this broad, squishy, and feel goody concept of glorifying God?
Also, I don’t see any danger in binding conscience with 2k. If someone is receiving discipline for 2k grounds, it is because that person is binding someone else’s conscience, as in the Judaizers. Now, if you mean that Paul was binding people’s consciences by telling them not to submit in a conscience binding way to good or pious intentions, you may have a point. But if you look at the list of possible offenses in a 2k book of discipline, it’s a whole lot less shorter than the Bible speaks to all of life book.
LikeLike
I am writing as one who came to Reformation theology through the Reformed writing of Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul (probably a worldviewer who spends much time talking about logic and philosophy and has positive things to say about Gordon Clark) John Gerstner (a Jonathan Edwards advocate) and then my experience at Calvin College with the transformationalist Reformed, so I often wonder why I don’t go on three day binges more often. I also spent 19 years in Evangelical and Charismatic non-denominational Churches. So, I have a bit of mental garbage to get rid of which makes it difficult for me to wholeheartedly advocate the pc-2K and confessional way. It is not an easy process because I am now leery of advocating a narrow outlook when I was wrong so many times before. There has to be something that the 2K and confessionalists are missing. I guess discussions like these have some worth even though it is probably frustrating for those who are defending their positions. That is probably the reason why Paul exhorts Timothy to speak the truth in love with all patience and understanding. The saints (sheep) have a tendency to roam and wander into dangerous territories and it is not always easy to bring them back. But the New Testament certainly advocates a way of truth to bring someone back to. The battle seems to be worth the effort. The difficulty also seems to lie in what truths we should be battling for the most. I am beginning to see the issues more clearly in regards to worldviewism (or biblicism) but am wavering on how critical it is. I think the discussion here is finally at that point and I am going back and forth so I guess I need more convincing before it all becomes a strong conviction.
LikeLike
Jeff, maybe it’s all a blur by now, but it sure seems like at one point you wanted to say that the Third Reich was an extraordinary political circumstance that gave a green light to violate the spirituality of the church, and that one way to get 2kers who are unmoved was to invoke the argument that “silence is tacit approval.” Maybe that wasn’t you. Even so, I guess I am still sort of stumped as to how you can make that kind of deal and still hold out on 2k…
LikeLike
Jeff,
I thought I heard my name.
I think the “danger” of 2K is not inherent in the theology, but in the way some advocates communciate it without proper qualifications and nuance. My own experience (being threatened with discipline for being invovled in public life) was caused by some well meaning by confused elders who had listened to a steady diet of anti-activist rhetoric from their 2k pastor for a long time. The pastor knew better; he would nver say what the elders said. But the constant drumbeat of unremitting, harsh criticism of the Christian right, evangelical activists, and “take back America” crowd for their “confusion of the two kingdoms” led these brothers to draw the conclusion that he meant that ALL involvement in the public square was sinful and required discipline. There is a popular Reformed author who wrote a good book criticizing culture wars that, because it isn’t nuanced, similarly conveys the impression that any public square involvement is wrong. He doesn’t believe that, but many of his readers took that from his book. Among the Reformed 2K group, there are some well meaning folk who, like any embattled minority, come out swinging and don’t fuss with many qualifications or nuance. They’re angry at the evangelical mess and mean to fix it. No time for nuance.
With that said, I can’t recommend enough DVD’s new book. He is properly nuanced and careful to anticipate possible misunderstandings and negate them. He expressly says that public square activity by individual Christians is ok. The author I mentioned has matured and clarified his own position to where he applauds individual-Christian public square activity properly conducted.
LikeLike
CVD: I have read most of DVD’s NL2k and appreciated it. I’ll put your recommendation on the queue.
Zrim: We may have gone down the “silence is tacit approval” road, but what I remember most was the “Christian life is all about obedience, so obey, obey, obey” road. IIRC, my argument was that obedience to the magistrate is not absolute.
DGH: Jeff, I don’t know what you’re talking about regarding where 2k leads as not being pretty.
I was referring to pendulum-swinging in general. Actually, what was on my mind was the 60+ seat pickup for Republicans in the house, and wondering where the heck they want to go from here.
DGH: Well, if obeying state law is glorifying of God, then you just lost your chance to preach against Hitler.
I don’t think so. Are you trying to say that if a parishioner of yours was involved in concentration camp work, that you wouldn’t discipline him, on the grounds that he’s obeying commands, so it must be glorifying to God?
You seem to have missed the part where Christians are *not* to obey commands from the magistrate that are contrary to Scripture.
DGH: Also, I don’t see any danger in binding conscience with 2k.
I think CVD’s experience speaks for itself. You, I, everyone always thinks that people will listen carefully to us and preserve our every nuance, slogan, maxim, qualification. Ha! A week in a high school classroom cures that.
LikeLike
Jeff, yes, I recall my obedience points. One reasons for that was to constrast obedience to magistrates with worship of magistrates, a distinction often not carefully made. Another was to give an answer to the typical anti-2k accusation of public square antinomianism–how can it be antinomian to characterize the Christian life in terms of obedience? But if talk of obedience scares you, another way of putting it is to say that the Christian life is a life of grateful response (of faith for the obedience done on our behalf), you know, like the whole third section of the the Heidelberg catechism.
And since when was it unlawful to work a 1942 German prison camp? That sounds more like a 2010 American ideology. The way this translates today is for a middle eastern 1ker to suggest it unlawful for a believer to work in a 2005 American CIA. But not everyone who works for certain governments in certain capacities are automatic lawbreakers. Persecuting ideologies is different from disciplining Christians, and all that.
And re the “some people hear wrong” stuff, the same thing happens when the gospel is rightly preached: preachers are accused of preaching antinomianism and hearers get the wrong idea about their being freely forgiven. Your point is fair, but don’t forget that it’s just this kind of protest that also drives some past nuance and into suggestions that the good news isn’t quite as good as previously announced. And, ironically enough for you maybe, one way to nuance things is to say that the Christian life is all about obedience.
LikeLike
Jeff, please speak for CVD’s experience since it doesn’t speak for itself to me. Where has 2k led to the sort of transformationalism, activism, movement thinking that is characteristic of American Protestants today? Where has anyone in the church been disciplined for activism? You take one illustration that didn’t actually seem to go to discipline and put that up against all the social justice and word and deed missionalism that surrounds the Reformed and Presbyterian world today.
And I thought you believed in honest weights and measures.
Bottom line: I do not see any danger in the church being the church. It is a danger for those who want the church to be the legislature or HHS.
LikeLike
DGH: You take one illustration that didn’t actually seem to go to discipline and put that up against all the social justice and word and deed missionalism that surrounds the Reformed and Presbyterian world today.
You mistake me. I’m not putting the two on a balance and saying “either this or that.” I consider that to be a mistake in reasoning, for the simple reasoning that it is a vast oversimplification to view “transformationalism” as the sole cause of the “social justice and word and deed missionalism” in Reformed circles. (Which I view as a mixed bag, anyways.)
DGH: Bottom line: I do not see any danger in the church being the church.
Ah yes. But are you so sure that your vision of the church is the correct one? It strikes me that you are putting forward a doctrine of Scripture, attached to your doctrine of the church, that is neither obviously taught in Scripture, nor obviously taught in the Confession.
So by all means, let the church be the church. But Dr. Hart’s church? Maybe.
LikeLike
To focus back on the main thing: I’ve advanced a syllogism
(1) The Bible speaks to all human activities.
(2) Plumbing is a human activity.
(3) Therefore, the Bible speaks to plumbing.
DGH, you’ve put forward two objections:
(~1) The Bible doesn’t actually speak to all human activities, and
(~2) This syllogism leads to liberalism.
Along the way, he’s also called my syllogism by some naughty names, like “biblicism.” 🙂
I think I’ve answered the second objection. The thing that keeps us out of liberalism is the Strict Scrutiny test. We see that “speaking to” is not the same as “specifying every detail”, and that we are not warranted to go beyond the broad norms of Scripture into binding mens’ consciences on details.
Now to (~1)t. First, an appeal to reason: If you are a plumber, would you say that you ought to glorify God in your plumbing? Surely yes. Why? Because Scripture commands it.
That seems to cinch the deal to me.
But this isn’t just my idea. Here’s Calvin:
31. Whether, therefore, ye eat, or drink Lest they should think, that in so small a matter they should not be so careful to avoid blame, he teaches that there is no part of our life, and no action so minute, that it ought not to be directed to the glory of God, and that we must take care that, even in eating and drinking, we may aim at the advancement of it. This statement is connected with what goes before; for if we are eagerly desirous of the glory of God, as it becomes us to be, we will never allow, so far as we can prevent it, his benefits to lie under reproach. It was well expressed anciently in a common proverb, that we must not live to eat; but eat to live. Provided the end of living be at the same time kept in view, the consequence will thus be, that our food will be in a manner sacred to God, inasmuch as it will be set apart for his service. — Calv Comm 1 Cor 10.31.
It should be noted here that (a) Calvin believes this passage teaches that all of our actions are to be directed to the glory of God; (b) that our eating is “sacred to God”, inasmuch as it is set apart for his service.
It appears on this basis that objection (~1) is spurious (and that the charge of biblicism is unwarranted). And once more, with feeling, the existence of WLC 122-148 demonstrates clearly that the Westminster Divines thought that Scripture norms common life, and therefore is not silent about common life.
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff, I will revisit this eating and plumbing to the glory of God in a post at some point. No one is denying that Christians are to glorify God. The question is whether the Bible speaks to plumbing or eating. You construe “all things” incredibly broadly, the wiggle in the room of running everywhere with the Bible. You don’t mean prostitution should be done to the glory of God, right? That’s because God’s word speaks to sex outside marriage. So you begin to qualify “all things” on the basis of what the Bible says and doesn’t say.
The Bible doesn’t say that plumbing is a sin or a vice. So conceivably a Christian may do it. And if he does, he should glorify God in it. Scripture is silent on how to go about giving glory to God.
The best you can argue is that the Bible speaks to Christians, not to plumbing.
But where I think you are vulnerable to liberalism, or your grandchildren, is your this worldly conception of what the Bible reveals and how Christianity impacts life. I sense that you are not as comfortable as I am with an otherworldly faith or church. And that, as I see it over and over again in history is the start of liberalism.
As for my church, how is word, sacrament, and discipline a Hart conception of the church? Puh-leeeeeeeeeze.
LikeLike
DGH: You don’t mean prostitution should be done to the glory of God, right? That’s because God’s word speaks to sex outside marriage. So you begin to qualify “all things†on the basis of what the Bible says and doesn’t say.
No, that’s incorrect. I don’t mean that prostitution should be done to the glory of God because God’s word makes it clear that prostitution cannot be done to the glory of God.
It’s because God’s work speaks to this issue in the common sphere (prostitution is in the common sphere, right?) that we as Christians know something about it.
This is so blinking obvious!!! (You, no doubt, feel the same way about me)
DGH: Scripture is silent on how to go about giving glory to God.
This is very telling admission. For we all agree that Scripture is not SILENT about glorifying God. And yet we see that Scripture does not specify the details about this.
So clearly, “speaking to” does not mean the same thing as “specifying.”
DGH: As for my church, how is word, sacrament, and discipline a Hart conception of the church?
None of that is, but the notion of “Scripture is silent about…” sure is.
LikeLike
DGH, in your upcoming post, it might be helpful or illuminating to consider this questions:
If Scripture forbids Christians to engage in prostitution, how can the Scripture be silent about prostitution?
And if Scripture is not silent about prostitution, which is obviously neither faith nor worship, then how can one say that Scripture is silent about things that are neither faith nor worship? (without, of course, crossing one’s fingers)
Thanks,
JRC
LikeLike
Jeff, Darren, and Bob,
I will withdraw some of my comments on QI and the Confession. I’ll agree that just saying quanta are uncaused in the physical world is not inconsistent with God causing it to be at a certain place at a certain time such that it cannot be at another place at that same time. However, I’m waiting for John Byl to get back to me with some informations. For now, though, I’ll agree in the main with you guys.
But, this does not detract from the general point. For it is conceivable that evidence could come to light that our Confession would cause us to reject. And indeed, I gave another example which was not addressed here. The Confession and the Reformed faith require us to deny certain anthropological intepretations of human development. In other words, there has to be an historical Adam. Furthermore, any scientific evidence that might come forward purporting to show that the universe never had a beginning must also be rejected. So the essence of the point still stands.
I’d also comment further on Darren’s exposition of free will but I don’t see the point. I’ll just say, thoug: It was nowhere sufficient for free will or moral responsibility. Mentally insane people can do what they want, yet they are not free or responsible—they lack the desiderata, *control*. Also, the view expressed is called classical compatibilism, but this view is well known to suffer from severe defects, such as falling into an infinite regress. Moreover, I don’t see how it could be called libertarianism since, by definition, “libertarianism” is the conjunction of two theses: determinism is false, and we have free will. Furthermore, libertarianism requires at least one of these, but usually both are seen: ultimate sourcehood and the principle of alternate possibilities.
LikeLike
Paul, I very much appreciate the spirit and candor of this.
I also agree with the essence of your point. When Warfield put forward the idea that creation and Scripture were two parallel books, he did not reckon that man’s interpretation of creation would veer into denial of Adam, Noah, the exodus, the conquest of Canaan, Daniel writing Daniel, and on and on.
LikeLike
There’s Paul- my conspiracy theory mind (I have probably been unduly influenced by T.V. shows like 24 and Rubicon and other Hollywood conspiracy movies) is wondering if Darryl called up his physicist friends (Darren and Bob) to bridle Paul in the hopes of taming him a bit. Or, was that mere providence. Paul might need a collective hug. Again, just trying to interject some catharsis. And it will probably get ignored again. I do love visiting this site. The unintended drama that unfolds during the dialog is captivating.
LikeLike
John, as my record shows, there’s no need to tame me. I argue hard but have no problem admitting when I’m wrong. I am on record in several places admitted positions I have changed on or where I have held a view I now think wrong. I did this with theonomy, hardline transcendental argument (or, the strong modal TAG), “transformationalism” as construed as redeeming society, jot and title worldviewism, and the reformed objection to natural theology. There are others too, but you get the point. On the flip side, it is interesting to note that 2kers like Darryl, Zrim, and R.S. Clark (&c.) find it almost impossible to ever admit that they were wrong about anything they choose to pontificate about . . . ever. That’s not a slur, it’s an honest observation.
LikeLike
Jeff, yes, good point about the exodus and the conquest a Canaan. I have a friend getting a PhD at Harvard in ANE studies. He is a WTS grad and a member of the PCA. He will tell you that the vast majority of scholars deny those things ever happened, and he admits that the evidence against those things is very strong indeed. So this is another place where the Bile would require Darryl to stick his untrained nose into business he knows very little about and declare the evidence, and the conclusions regarding lack of evidence, to be wrong or not indicative of what really happened. So this would be another area where darryl’s worldview minimalism would conflict with the facts of how he has to live his life as one who upholds the historicity and inerrancy of the Bible.
LikeLike
Paul,
It has been shown on numerous occasions (and by the reactions of those whom you are arguing against) that you tend to be a bit harsh on those who do not argue according to the methods you have spent much time developing and have a propensity towards. There are other methods of arguing points; just like there are a variety of apologetic methods. You pass this off as defending intellectual virtues and come off like you are attacking someone occasionally. I suppose we all need to develop thicker skin but the human psyche can be fragile in moments of weakness and we always do not perform at our top intellectual levels. And there are a variety of intellectual levels.
With that said you might be right about the stubborn streak in pc-2kers. They do not back down and the persistence of all involved here is something remarkable to behold and observe. Whether progress has been made in the points up for debate is debatable. Perhaps there are some things under the surface which have not been exposed yet (some presupposition or whatever) and keeps those arguing from coming to an agreement towards the matters at hand.
LikeLike
John,
I have no clue what you mean by saying, “you tend to be a bit harsh on those who do not argue according to the methods you have spent much time developing and have a propensity towards.” Do you mean when Darryl frequently refuses to answer direct questions, engages in rhetoric and ad hominems (e.g., “Paul think regeneration raises the I.Q.), or smugly blows me off via some other sophism? Or do you mean those traits in Zrim that were so nicely pointed ut by C. van Dyke? Or when Zrim says he can blow off logic if it contradicts a point he wants to make? Yeah, I’m harsh on that. I also have no clue what you mean by saying, “there are other methods of arguing points just like there are other apologetic methods.” No apologetic method I am aware of claims you can ditch logic, engage in sophistry, or denigrade reason and other desiderate of rational discourse. But that’s what is frequently done here. Moreover, as far as developing thicker skin, one wonders if the Reformers, apostles, or even Jesus himself would be allowed to comment here without taking the moral beratings disched out by some. Despite the faults I have and have owned up to, one must admit that many here have confused modern, Western notions of “niceness” with absolute timeless norms of discourse that apparently float about in the Platonic heaven.
LikeLike
From what has been stated in past posts and from observing who is arguing most forcefully against 2K it seems that those who are involved in the field of philosophical theology have the most problems with 2k and confessionalism. So, I would conclude that the methodology of deductive logic may be the problem here. Are there inherent problems with deductive logic when analyzing the scriptures and theology? Does confessionalism advocate a different sort of methodological analysis which is causing the inherent problems? That may be the direction that sheds more light on the subjects at issue here.
LikeLike
Paul,
There it is- that is the presupposition you are arguing from; that logic is the end all and what you appeal to as the highest form of arriving at truth. We do not come to the truth of scripture through logical discourse. Nor is everyone trained in logic. There are inherent limits to our logic and reason. Both Luther and Calvin argued this and it caused a lot of controversy towards those who were arguing against the magisterial reformers.
Don’t accuse me of advocating western notions of “niceness” either. That is pure arrogance on your part. There is a place for coming down hard with your arguments (Jesus, Paul, Luther and Calvin all did this) but I am not sure you chose the right moments to do this. That is what I meant by being tamed. I am sorry you took it wrong but I don’t see you being apologetic towards those whom you might have come down hard on inappropriately. Go argue with your Harvard types and look down on high from your logical perch in the sky on all those lesser lights who do not possess your intellectual virtues. Are you aware of how arrogant you come across?
I know you have no clue what I mean by saying you tend to be a bit harsh on those who do not argue according to the methods you have spent much time developing and have a propensity towards. There are inductive ways to argue too. You seem to think that deductive logic is the only way to argue. There is something missing in the dialog between those who are arguing here that is not making a connection. I am simply asking whether the philosophical theology types are using a different methodology of arriving at their truth claims.
LikeLike
Aristotle is from the west- the Jews of the Old Testament knew nothing of Aristotle and his logic. Paul did reason daily with those in the synagogues and in the public square but I do not see him pointing out fallacies in his discourse. Perhaps you are the one floating around in the Platonic induced paradise with Aristotle. Their logic put them at odds with one another. Doug Wilson’s logic put him at odds with the Reformers too. R.C. Sproul’s and John Gerstner’s logic put them at odds with the presuppositionalists and evidentialists. Can one come to the unity of the faith that Paul argues about in Corinthians through western notions of logic?
LikeLike
John, I think the philosophically inclined impose their abstractions on reality. It is a different temperament. Didn’t Shakespeare write, “kill all the philosophers”?
LikeLike
Jeff, to borrow from Zrim’s point, Scripture speaks to persons, not to activities. Prostitution is not a common activity for Christians. The church forbids sex outside marriage. Prostitution is a common activity for the state. States regulate or prohibit it in various ways.
I think where we keep stumbling is over the issue of how to do something. You seem to want Scripture to function this way, while conceding it won’t give specifics. Still, your point seems to be to do things Christianly. I don’t believe Christianity is an adverb. It is personal. It applies to persons. Persons have duties. How they do them — which adverb — is micromanaging.
LikeLike
DGH, you’re reversing yourself.
Before, “honest” was supposedly an adverb (though actually an adjective!), and Christians are bound by the Scriptures to do no more than apply certain adverbs to their work. My “error” was the supposed inability to distinguish verbs from adverbs. Adverbs good, verbs bad.
Now, telling people how to do things — which adverb — is micromanaging. So adverbs are now bad, and we’re back to verbs.
Your point seems to be a libertarian point: “Don’t tell me how to fix pipes!” And I’m happy to give you as much space as possible to do so. But sometimes, Scripture raises its hand and says, “I have something to say about this.”
And when it does, it’s not silent.
Your structure of duties v. actions v. verbs v. adverbs is so complex that you don’t seem to be able to keep it straight.
Best to go for the simple and accurate: The Bible tells us to do all things to the glory of God. To that extent, and no further, it speaks to all human activities. All human activities are to be done to the glory of God, because the Scripture speaks it so.
Here’s one thing that’s at stake. By dividing “plumbing” from the “other duties” (like being honest) that surround plumbing, you sunder the Christian’s common activities from the glorifying of God. Plumbing is over there, Christian behavior is over here.
But historically, the Reformed thought (dare I say, worldview) was that common activities like plumbing can be glorifying to God in and of themselves, when carried out by faith.
The faith doesn’t stand alone, glorifying God in the inner man; the plumbing doesn’t stand alone, glorifying God because the plumber made a really good pipe joint. No: the faith is expressed in the plumber’s work. The obedience to God, the service to God, takes place in the execution of the plumbing.
It is then the beginning of a right course in good works, when we understand that we are consecrated to the Lord; for it hence follows, that we must cease to live to ourselves, in order that we may devote all the actions of our life to his service. — Calv Comm 12.1.
And that’s why I’m not attracted to a “Christian veneer” over plumbing or science or whathaveyou. We don’t need to add a Christian veneer to plumbing to make it glorifying to God. We need merely to plumb, by faith. The doing of the plumbing (by faith) is enough.
But plumbing by faith is not without reference to Scripture, for Scripture is not silent about the plumber’s ethics as he plumbs.
LikeLike
John,
On my blog I’ll post some good stuff from Oliver Crisp on philosophical theology, stuff that will prove a useful corrective to guys like Darryl who think HT will solve all our problems.
John: where did I say or how can you affirm that I say “logic is the end all.” And, every form of reasoning can be put into a logical form. People reason when they come to conclusions. They believe things, they think, for good reasons. Logic allows us to test those chains of inference. If someone’s reasoning is fallacious, they don’t have good grounds to believe what they do. In fact, their conclusion may be true, but if they believe it as a result of formal or informal fallacious reasoning, they do not have a rational right to believe it.
I also made a level-headed point about the some people confusing modern, Western notions of niceness with absolute norms of reasoning. You then launched into an emotional-ridden tirade, engaging in name-calling and rude behavior. Very ironic. My point was not arrogant, nor was it intended to be. Furthermore, Calvin, Luther, and Jesus didn’t just *argue* hard, the words they used and the names they called would make us blush.
I know there are inductive ways of arguing, and in fact, that is what I mostly employ. You actually have very little understanding of how I argue. And you have very little understanding of the methods I employ. Furthermore, people here are not making “inductive” argument, John. That’s not the basis of our disagreement.
Lastly, are you seriously suggesting that there is something wrong with pointing out fallacies? if someone reasons fallaciously, then the argument is done. Over. Moreover, Aristotelian logic is very weak and actually has very little use today (and when people here try to engage in using logic, it seems all they know is Aristotelian logic). Logic has advanced sine the time of Paul and Aristotle. Anyway, all of Paul’s arguments could be put into forms. Furthermore, there is more than one way to disagree with an argument. Paul didn’t point out fallacies or forms (though he did on occassion), but he did question the truth of premises, which go to show the argument is unsound.
Anyway, don’t take it too personally.
LikeLike
Darryl,
This may boil down to an argument between the math jocks and the verbal jocks. It has deep historical roots with deeply ingrained cognitive habits and ways of thinking. And as the Shakespeare quote makes clear there is deep hostility between the two group types. The question is if you saw a math jock beaten up on the side of the road by some verbal jocks would you go out of your way to help him?
LikeLike
Shakespeare said kill all the philosophers but sure made a lot of philosophical points and presupposed a definite philosophy. Also, scholar Colin McGinn has a book out called Shakespeare’s philosophy. The problem for Historians like Darryl is that their field only allows them to tell us what happened (but even here there’s massive debate) not what should be or should have happened. But historians always want to do that. Anyway, to think Historians don’t try to impose their pet views and theories of reality on us is just laughable.
LikeLike
Jeff,
“But historically, the Reformed thought (dare I say, worldview) was that common activities like plumbing can be glorifying to God in and of themselves, when carried out by faith.”
See, it is faith that is conditional to glorifying God. We aren’t talking about plumbing, or any vocation on the level of what these consist of or how they are executed. Two plumbers who do plumb with equal competency and honesty (billing, time card reporting, etc.) will have equally similar results a job well done at a fair price – the only way one can glorify God isn’t inherent to his plumbing, rather to his faith.
I honestly believe you are overstating the dilemma when you place the Reformed view of vocation at stake here. Since we all uphold the fact that we should glorify God in our work, it is probably of little consequence what your position is regarding 2k. Distinguishing the discipline of a respective vocation from our Christian duties doesn’t negate our Christian duties where they transect our vocations, and that should be apparent to someone regardless of which side you land on here.
The faith doesn’t stand alone, glorifying God in the inner man; the plumbing doesn’t stand alone, glorifying God because the plumber made a really good pipe joint. No: the faith is expressed in the plumber’s work. The obedience to God, the service to God, takes place in the execution of the plumbing.
What happens when you replace plumbing in this statement with oncology or heart surgery? This is the whole point of the argument – faith doesn’t privilege the believer in these fields. Either you can diagnose and treat cancer or you can’t; either you can successfully operate on a heart or you can’t. Scripture and faith might help a believing doctor approach the job with a mind to honor God, but that alone will not enhance his skill or effectiveness in his field. But when lives are on the line it would be irresponsible to investigate the religious devotion of a doctor when his job is to save lives. Whether or not God is glorified is frankly an issue between the doctor and God, since in the secular sphere the only criteria we have to evaluate someones work is output. You might argue that output included honesty, but the unbeliever is as capable of honest work as the believer.
LikeLike
Paul,
Your whole tone is patronizing and condescending. Thanks for your pearls of wisdom. You seem to have the whole cognitive world figured out. I would say most of the decisions we make do not follow the pattern you lay out. It has been shown that our cognitive maps are extremely complex and people have differing cognitive strengths and weaknesses. We all do not follow patterns of logic that you are describing. You get very impatient with those who do not think with your patterns. You did not address my comment about the limits of logic and reason. Logic and reason have been used to try to persuade here but the fact remains that there is no unity. Other cognitive forces are at work that are keeping us from agreeing with each other. How does one solve this problem? Do you use confessional standards that have been worked out over the centuries and have means of correcting errors or do you employ human logic which seems to have the problem of the noetic influence of sin. We are at a crossroads here and I am more persuaded by the confessionalists than the logicians. There is more involved than just logic.
I did not take it personally- I was just making my point. I have heard Luther argue “in ways that would make us blush” and he has been harshly criticized and was shown to be in error when he did this on numerous occasions. Why do you rationalize this harshness with the attitude of “I am just pointing out intellectual virtues?” Intellectual virtues may be much more broad then you presuppose.
LikeLike
My point about the math jocks and verbal jocks was intended in humor- I think the point of the parable of the Good Samaritan was to reveal to us our inherent sin and need of a Saviour not to make some moral and social point.
LikeLike
Paul says: “I also made a level-headed point about the some people confusing modern, Western notions of niceness with absolute norms of reasoning. You then launched into an emotional-ridden tirade, engaging in name-calling and rude behavior. Very ironic. My point was not arrogant, nor was it intended to be. Furthermore, Calvin, Luther, and Jesus didn’t just *argue* hard, the words they used and the names they called would make us blush.”
Is there a contradiction here? I am name calling and engaging in rude behavior and Calvin, Luther and Jesus didn’t just “argue” hard , the words they used and the “names they called” would make us blush. Perhaps I should have said that other cognitive and emotional forces are often at work in us or even outside of us. Hmm, very ironic.
Paul says: I know there are inductive ways of arguing, and in fact, that is what I mostly employ. You actually have very little understanding of how I argue. And you have very little understanding of the methods I employ. Furthermore, people here are not making “inductive†argument, John. That’s not the basis of our disagreement.
Okay Mr. Know-it-all what is the basis of our disagreement? Enlighten us all please. I am sure all will agree with your basis of our disagreement- Not!!!
LikeLike
It seems to me that the “basis of our disagreement” is in the methodologies of our truth claims. One uses confessional standards worked out through years of battles with explicit and implicit heresies that do not seem to line up with what the scriptures teach (I thought this was reasoning inductively),the other looking for inherent deductive logical fallacies in the syllogisms present in the arguments. How the Holy Spirit convinces someone of the truths found in the scriptures is probably a very personal thing (the convicting and convincing appeals to the individual cognitive strengths, weaknesses and personal experiences in life) and highly mysterious.
LikeLike
John,
“Is there a contradiction here? I am name calling and engaging in rude behavior and Calvin, Luther and Jesus didn’t just “argue†hard , the words they used and the “names they called†would make us blush. Perhaps I should have said that other cognitive and emotional forces are often at work in us or even outside of us. Hmm, very ironic.”
Well, if you must know: I was answering you on your terms. Pointing out your hypocrisy. Apparently it’s okay to engage in that kind of behavior as long as you think you’re returning in kind?
” You seem to have the whole cognitive world figured out.”
No, I don’t. And nothing I said could lead you to say that I think this. This is a naked assertion, and ignorant conjecture. More than that, it’s patronizing and condescending.
” I would say most of the decisions we make do not follow the pattern you lay out.”
What pattern is that? And, are you about to give me an . . . argument? Can’t escape it, John.
“It has been shown that our cognitive maps are extremely complex and people have differing cognitive strengths and weaknesses.
And I disagreed with this where, exactly?
“We all do not follow patterns of logic that you are describing.”
I never said “we follow patterns of logic.” I said that when we believe for reasons that they can be formalized. And that’s true.
” You did not address my comment about the limits of logic and reason.”
What question? I simply denied the belief you attributed to me. Why should I bother continuing on with your straw man? You’ve shown no interaction with what I have written, demonstrating my “views on logic.” You have simply asserted some unsavory views I allegedly hold to.
“Logic and reason have been used to try to persuade here but the fact remains that there is no unity.”
I understand that. But what’s your point? You’re using logic and reason to try and persuade me that logic and reason cannot persuade everyone. And I certainly have no illusion that logic and reason can get everyone to agree. But that’s the tools we have . . . and the best ones too. All I can do is present the argument, present the reasons. I am not responsible for what people do with it.There’s a lot that accounts for why there’s no unity on matters. Either someone doesn’t think the reasons provide support for the conclusion, or someone doesn’t find the premises used to be true.
“Other cognitive forces are at work that are keeping us from agreeing with each other. How does one solve this problem?”
You continue to use reason and logic and try to find ways to make cogent arguments. Moreover, the use of reason and argument isn’t always to get the other guy to agree. Sometimes it is to show that your own position is not as problematic as the other thinks, that it doesn’t fail for the reasons cited against it.
“Do you use confessional standards that have been worked out over the centuries and have means of correcting errors or do you employ human logic which seems to have the problem of the noetic influence of sin.”
False dichotomy: they used reason and logic to get the confessional standards. Moreover, if our cognitive faculties are so influenced by sin, what does that say for the Confessional stadards? Look at all the different theological views out there. Look at all the appeal to Scripture and there’s no unity. Moreover, Hart and his fellow Confessionalists have denied several older Confessional statements. They hold to the revised standards. You’re view is naive.
“We are at a crossroads here and I am more persuaded by the confessionalists than the logicians. There is more involved than just logic.
The confessioanlists are using logic and reason to make their arguments, more false dichotomies! And, I have never said there was not more involved that just logic, more strawmen!
“I have heard Luther argue “in ways that would make us blush†and he has been harshly criticized and was shown to be in error when he did this on numerous occasions. Why do you rationalize this harshness with the attitude of “I am just pointing out intellectual virtues?â€
Examples would be nice. What harshness, and how is it not just something that doesn’t fit with your temperment?
And this goes for everyone: if someone really feels I have sinned and am in need of addressing, then you are supposed to come to me privately, not publicly. But no one does that. So what excuse is their for not following the biblical model? Seems to me like a convenient way to change the subject away from rational argument to emotional bullying.
LikeLike
John: This may boil down to an argument between the math jocks and the verbal jocks.
This is very insightful, and I’ve been wondering much the same thing.
The other thing I’m wondering is whether it boils down to two ways of thinking about “how to do X” — is “how to” a list of instructions, or a set of tactical goals? I am firmly in the latter camp, and therefore have no problem saying that Scripture gives a couple of high-level tactical goals which a Christian must always have in view.
But I can imagine that if DGH or someone else is in the former camp, then of course Scripture does not tell us “how to” do things.
LikeLike
Jed: Whether or not God is glorified is frankly an issue between the doctor and God, since in the secular sphere the only criteria we have to evaluate someones work is output.
But the issue between the doctor and God is precisely what we’re talking about here! Here’s the believing doctor, contemplating how Scripture relates to his life. And the answer that pc-2k wants to give is “It doesn’t. It is silent.” The answer I think we ought to give is, “Scripture tells us to glorify God through our doctoring.”
By switching reference frames, that of the secular evaluator of someone else’s work, you’ve subtly changed the issue. The outside, secular evaluator is, generally speaking, unable to speak to whether the doctor has glorified God. That’s neither here nor there. We aren’t trying to instruct secular (or religious) evaluators about how to evaluate doctors; we’re trying to work with doctors who are in our church.
One of the central ideas here is “personal theonomy” — or in more familiar terms, teaching people to live life coram deo. It’s not about giving A the power to judge B.
LikeLike
Paul,
My training in formal logic is limited to my freshman year in College back in 1976 at Northwestern Michigan College in Traverse City, Michigan. Actually, I think I got a A in the course but found it difficult and you have to keep up on it and use it regularly to get good at it. It is a priority that often goes to the back burner due to other demands on our lives. I did read a lot of Sproul and even began his tape series in formal logic but never finished it. So my training in logic is limited and rusty and I bet most of us have that same limited training in it. It seems to me that you have made formal logic and philosophical inquiry a big priority in your life probably because you found you were good at it. You cannot expect others to adhere to making formal logic and philosophical inquiry a big priority. I have no doubt there is value in it and it can be a useful tool but there may be a point of diminishing returns on it and it has its limitations. And often people are obnoxious in their use of it which is a big turnoff towards it. I wish I had time to develop my logic, reasoning and arguing skills and I know I am sloppy at it. I guess I have a battle going on inside with how formally good I have to be at it and how necessary it is to grow and develop in the Christian life (sanctification).
You seem to be obsessed with pointing out others faults in arguing- could there be a more tactful way of approach in your technique? Jeff does not ignite the emotional reaction that you do. You may find you piss others off less frequently and ignite less emotional responses. I would be more than happy to learn from your strengths but your strength may turn out to be a severe weakness. We still have not reached a consensus in the arguments here and I am still searching for a reason why. So, what is the basis of the disagreement?
LikeLike
But historically, the Reformed thought (dare I say, worldview) was that common activities like plumbing can be glorifying to God in and of themselves, when carried out by faith. The faith doesn’t stand alone, glorifying God in the inner man; the plumbing doesn’t stand alone, glorifying God because the plumber made a really good pipe joint. No: the faith is expressed in the plumber’s work. The obedience to God, the service to God, takes place in the execution of the plumbing…The answer I think we ought to give is, “Scripture tells us to glorify God through our doctoring.â€
I know I sound like a broken record, but what troubles me in all this sort of talk is the implication that faith alone is insufficient to glorify God; it seems an awful lot like the inverse of saying faith alone is insufficient for God to justify. What about the plumber who has faith but makes a not so really good pipe, whose pipe is out-done by the unbeliever? I have to believe it happens a lot more than is perhaps imagined, that believers’ works pale in comparison to unbelievers’. Where does this leave them? To my mind, they have done a less-than work but they still may take comfort in knowing that they glorify God nevertheless. On your scheme, where’s the Christian comfort when outpaced by the world? It seems to me that even the lousiest Christian plumber can take comfort in knowing he still outpaces the world eternity-wise.
LikeLike
DGH: Shakespeare wrote, “Let’s kill all the lawyers.”
You say, the Bible is not sufficient for life, and on your terms the Bible is not sufficient for faith: it doesn’t teach me Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, doesn’t teach me textual criticism, doesn’t explain literary genres, and most of all, it doesn’t give me the Holy Spirit.
Those things are hardly what the WCF means when it says the Bible is sufficient for faith and life (or as the OPC elder vows put it) “faith and practice.”
LikeLike
Zrim: I know I sound like a broken record, but what troubles me in all this sort of talk is the implication that faith alone is insufficient to glorify God; it seems an awful lot like the inverse of saying faith alone is insufficient for God to justify.
Objection noted. I had this whole long response centered on WCoF 14.2 and 15, James, and Galatians, but I’ll replace it with this question:
Why does Paul tell us to “do all things to the glory of God”? (τι ποιειτε παντα εις δοξαν θεου ποιειτε) in 1 Cor 10.31. What does he mean?
My (1) in the syllogism claims that Paul means that we are to do all things to the glory of God. You and DGH disagree — yet you’ve offered up no alternative reading.
This is a significant hole in your objection. Without an alternative exegesis, you offer me nothing but to dig in my heels.
—
Zrim: On your scheme, where’s the Christian comfort when outpaced by the world? It seems to me that even the lousiest Christian plumber can take comfort in knowing he still outpaces the world eternity-wise.
It’s not the faith together with excellence. It’s the faith together with the plumbing. The action itself, when done by faith, is glorifying to God. Not some quality about the action.
LikeLike
John, I’m conflicted. I used to be a math jock jock. Now my math is rusty and I tend to be verbal. But Jeff tells me I can’t keep the distinction between adverbs and adjectives. What’s a guy to do? But at least I did fool Paul into thinking that Shakespeare wrote, “kill all the philosophers.” He actually wrote, “kill all the lawyers.” Math and verbal jocks would likely assent to that.
LikeLike
Paul thinks that Darryl believes that historians don’t have biases. Paul is wrong about Darryl. What is clear though is that Paul is wrong about philosophers who rarely let history infringe on their abstractions. At least Darryl is right that historians need to make an effort to deal with reality.
LikeLike
“Eliza”, I know what Shakespeare wrote (Paul doesn’t).
But you make want to take a logic class from Paul if you think I believe the Bible is insufficient for faith. As the kids say, “huh”?
What you don’t seem to realize is that folks like Dr. K put 2 (Bible speaks to all of life) + 2 (every square inch) together and get philosophers who think they know everything because of Christian epistemology.
LikeLike
Jeff, actually, we are not talking about the doctor’s relationship to God. None of us has that frame of reference and your mistake is likely that you think you do have that frame of reference either by virtue of regeneration or special revelation. If you or your unbelieving neighbors watches the surgeon’s performance in an operation, neither of you can see whether it glorifies God. To do so would require a little heart knowledge that none of us mortals has.
So the believer and unbeliever are both limited in understanding how surgery glorifies God. We both need to evaluate the procedures and practices of the profession and see (according to gen. rev. and reason) whether they are good. And we can both look at the Bible to see if those procedures and practices are mentioned (which they aren’t). But I don’t know how a Christian can evaluate a surgeon’s capacity to glorify God. I know this might sound condescending, but I see in your affirmation the kind of gullibility that I used to see in fundamentalist relatives. So if the surgeon bows his head before surgery, he must be praying, and so he MUST be glorifying God. Well, a couple other options are out there. One is that he is simply trying to fool observers like you into thinking he is pious. Or he could be trying to remember the particular procedure he now needs to execute.
And here again I’d point to the times, Jeff. The times are filled with people who want to go to Christian schools, Christian activities, listen to Christian music, surround themselves with things Christian. And most of these people think that the Bible gives them the warrant for doing these Christian activities in Christian ways. You are giving the addict his fix. But most of those activities are actually normed by standards that believers and non-believers share. Believers don’t have insight into the human heart. And they don’t have religious rules for plumbing. (BTW, which is more honest, pvc or copper? And what would Bob Villa say?)
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, actually, we are not talking about the doctor’s relationship to God. None of us has that frame of reference and your mistake is likely that you think you do have that frame of reference either by virtue of regeneration or special revelation.
This is bizarre.
What I’m talking about is what Paul says in Galatians: Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, for each one should carry their own load.
That is, the purpose of thinking about how Scripture relates to doctoring is so that the doctor can test his own actions. End of story.
There’s nothing here about me being able to look into the doctor’s heart. I can’t, and shouldn’t try. If the surgeon bows his head before cutting, I observe that fact with the same caution that I use when GW Bush says that “Jesus is his favorite philosopher.”
You’re way off base here.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I am not sure you have reached the Renaissance man status that Paul has obviously attained to. The cathartic bubble is about to burst. So, who is the DaVinci or Solomon who can solve our conundrum?
LikeLike
Maybe the Dos Equis (sp?) man does some consultation work- he probably charges an outrageous fee though.
LikeLike
Don’t take what I said personally Paul- I used to think DGH and Zrim were arrogant but now they acknowledge my comments so it’s all good. Isn’t that what reality is like? Besides I took communion last Sunday but am finding I am in dire need of it again this week too.
LikeLike
Here’s a good quote found over at the Riddleblog: “”Without directing their people to do good works and to fund good works through their tithes, these Two-Kingdoms preachers are no better than thieves—an organized scheme of extortion to line their pockets and build bigger buildings while preaching sermons about why our funds should go to pay preachers and build buildings. This is organized crime—a Pulpit Mafia, Gangsters for Jesus.”
Who said that? Please leave your guess in the comments section below. No google searches or cheating.
LikeLike
This stuff is unbelievable
LikeLike
I am just trying to get this post up to the #1 spot
LikeLike
My money’s on McAtee. Now for the Google … nah, someone I’ve never heard of.
LikeLike
John, has the aroma Bayly swill to me.
LikeLike
Not McAtee and not Bayly. I do not think anyone is going to get it although the group is trying to take America back for Jesus but they are definitely hard left leaning.
LikeLike
Someone needs to force these guys to spend some long quality time with crack and heroin addicts, knapy-headed ho’s, swindlers, con-artists, thugs, gang-bangers, hard-line alcoholics and the homeless.
LikeLike
“Someone needs to force these guys to spend some long quality time with crack and heroin addicts, knapy-headed ho’s, swindlers, con-artists, thugs, gang-bangers, hard-line alcoholics and the homeless.”
As long as those crack addicts home school, court instead of date, and dress in confederate garb, they should turn out fine.
LikeLike
Why does Paul tell us to “do all things to the glory of God� (τι ποιειτε παντα εις δοξαν θεου ποιειτε) in 1 Cor 10.31. What does he mean?
Jeff, I’m no exegete, but it just seems to me that if we have faith we already do all things to the glory of God because we can do no other, whether we do those things well or mediocre. I wonder if you’re trying to make Paul say more than he’s saying. No offense, but to me that’s a sign of the neo impulse.
It’s not the faith together with excellence. It’s the faith together with the plumbing. The action itself, when done by faith, is glorifying to God. Not some quality about the action.
Yeah, faith plus something glorifies God. So you can remove excellence and keep the action, but it’s still faith plus something that glorifes God. I still don’t get how this comports to the doctrine of sola fide.
LikeLike
Todd,
So is this the same Todd who frequents Zrim’s Outhouse and Pastors the Church in New Mexico I believe, aka RioRancho? I am not sure you got the gist of my post. I was referring to the fellow and fellows who stated the above quote who with bleeding heart wax on how the Church does not care for the poor and homeless. It seems to me that they assume that with sufficient moral effort and using Jesus as the model for their behavior they will have no problem swaying a sufficient amount of Americans to their way of thinking and turn America back to God. Now the strategy of picking on 2Kers seems a bit mislead to me (there is not a whole lot of us folk). I think they need a new strategic thinker who can create a bigger bang for their buck and gain some attention for themselves.
As long as those crack addicts home school, court instead of date, and dress in confederate garb, they should turn out fine. I am not sure what you mean by “turn out fine” but I have seen some of these types actually turn their lives around and begin living decent lives again. It is probably more the exception than the rule though and most do not “turn out fine.” But they adapt pretty readily to very adverse circumstances and amazing survive for long periods of time.
LikeLike
John,
It was a joke at the expense of American Vision, whose name says it all.
LikeLike
Jeff, here’s what you wrote, whether bizarre or not:
“But the issue between the doctor and God is precisely what we’re talking about here! . . . . By switching reference frames, that of the secular evaluator of someone else’s work, you’ve subtly changed the issue. The outside, secular evaluator is, generally speaking, unable to speak to whether the doctor has glorified God. . . .”
So I still contend that the issue between the doctor and God is one that is spiritual, and invisible. The glory that he shows or does not show is not possible to see.
I also contend that we are not talking about THIS issue. We have been talking about the doing of things and whether the Bible addresses the action (as opposed to motivation or telos).
I also maintain that the Christian is in the same position as the secular evaluator when regarding the surgeon’s performance. A Christian cannot see how the surgeon glorifies God. And your notion that he can is what leads many to think that the doctor will look visibly (sorry for the redundancy but the redundancy is actually the pietist’s who wants faith to be visibly evident on the Christian’s sleeve) different from the non-Christian surgeon.
This is what we are talking about. How does the Christian doctor’s work in the civil kingdom or in the culture look different from the non-Christians. Does Scripture give any guidance for this? No. It is silent.
LikeLike
DGH: So I still contend that the issue between the doctor and God is one that is spiritual, and invisible. The glory that he shows or does not show is not possible to see.
Agreed.
DGH: I also contend that we are not talking about THIS issue. We have been talking about the doing of things and whether the Bible addresses the action
Disagreed (below).
DGH: I also maintain that the Christian is in the same position as the secular evaluator when regarding the surgeon’s performance. A Christian cannot see how the surgeon glorifies God.
Agreed
DGH: And your notion that he can…
Well, at least now I understand where you got the idea. I was still hot about this issue last night, but I can guess where you were coming from.
Context, my friend. The term “secular” came from Jed, not me. I wasn’t distinguishing between secular and Christian in my response, but emphasizing that a secular observer (Jed’s term) is an outside observer. He is unable to evaluate the doctor because he is outside the doctor. An outside Christian observer is obviously in the same position.
—
We have indeed been talking about the doing of things and whether the Bible addresses the action. But of course, the Bible distinguishes action from motive without separating them. In Scripture, one cannot have genuine motive without the accompanying action (Jas. 2); nor is the action evaluated on its own, but always in light of the accompanying motive (E.g. Matt 6.1-14).
You may find this an overly complex way of looking at things, but I find it necessary — call it “irreducible complexity.”
But in adopting this system, I do surrender something: the ability to judge outside actions on their own. If actions are not isolated from motive, then my judgments about actions will be tentative instead of absolute.
But isn’t that a good thing? Do you want me to judge you according your misinterpretation of my words? Or would you rather have me understand where you are coming from? 🙂
Or put another way: I’m not so interested in the Christian doctor making her work look different. I’m interested in the Christian doctor being faithful in her doctoring, which entails both maximizing her competence (for the sake of loving neighbor) and also doctoring by faith (for the sake of glorifying God). Nothing else really matters.
In the end, we’re talking about discipling the folk under our care, teaching them to obey the things Jesus has commanded. He has commanded us to correlate our actions and motives (again, Matt. 6) and not merely to make our actions “look” a certain way from the outside.
Or put yet another way: isn’t the command to “be honest” an issue of motive as well as action? When I taught ethics, I asked the students to think about this question: What does it mean to lie?
It turns out that the answer rests heavily on motive. Telling an accidental falsehood is not lying; nor is leaving out incidental details. Deliberately creating a false impression is lying.
Anyways, I’m rambling.
But the central point is that we are in agreement on this: Neither secular nor Christian observer is able to definitively tell whether an action glorifies God. And yet, this is what each individual Christian living coram deo is to do.
LikeLike
I know it was a joke Todd- I guess I did not see how it fit with the American Vision article. The guy who wrote the article was very liberal not conservative. He was making the point that 2Kers are indifferent to social involvement which really is not the case. 2Kers just narrowly define the Churches mission to preaching the Law and Gospel, administering the sacraments and disciplining members with the intention of bringing them back to their proper confessional faith, piety and practice.
The believer has the liberty to participate in political or social action if he wants but it has nothing to do with his Church life or theology and it gains him no brownie points with the big Cahuna.
Hey, does anyone know any 2K preachers who are organizing a scheme of of extortion to line their pockets and build bigger buildings while preaching sermons about why our funds should go to pay preachers and build buildings? I think he’s talking more about mega-churches, word/faith churches, etc, etc not 2K Churches. Liberal Episcopalians tend to be a bit confused in many ways.
LikeLike
John,
I don’t think he is liberal. There is a strong theonomic strain among Reformed Episcopalians. I don’t think American Vision would hire a liberal. Now I have to prepare for our Capital Fund Drive for our new church gymnasium.
LikeLike
Paul says: And this goes for everyone: if someone really feels I have sinned and am in need of addressing, then you are supposed to come to me privately, not publicly. But no one does that. So what excuse is their for not following the biblical model? Seems to me like a convenient way to change the subject away from rational argument to emotional bullying.”
I am off to Church to get forgiveness for this grievous sin I committed against Paul. And that is not the only one I committed this week. May everyone’s Sabbath Day be filled with rest and renewal.
LikeLike
Todd,
You are right-my bad. I scanned the article quickly and saw some things written about the poor and how it was the Churches responsibility to care for them and jumped to my conclusions. I will prepare myself for any backlash-especially from those whom I might have rubbed the wrong way.
I should have known better because I have read some articles at the site before- I was thinking that maybe they had some visiting alternative viewpoints on occasion. I’m blushing with embarrassment.
LikeLike
Jeff, so let me get this straight. When we talk about Christian plumbing, we are not really talking about the actions but the motives?
Or are we talking about fixing leaks and motives?
And if you start a Christian school of plumbing, do you only hire Christians to teach the motives and expert plumbers to teach fixing leaks?
What I am also puzzled by is the implicit assumption that motive and action add up to the glory of God. What happens when things go wrong? What happens when the surgery is unsuccessful because of incompetency. Someone may have tried to glorify God, that was their aim. But they were absent from that one class that covered the circumstance that came up during the procedure. Or their fingers were insufficiently nimble and the nerve next to the eye got severed. Does that still glorify God?
And what about filthy rags? Even our good works are tainted by sin. So motive + action + sin = glory of God?
But to the doing of things — that is what we are talking about. I don’t see the Bible addressing lots of doing of things. You say that the Bible does because it addresses motives. The right motives don’t produce the right actions if the actions require competence. And Scripture does not address competency.
That is what 2k is talking about. The competencies are matters that come from general revelation. This is especially the case for civil government. Scripture does not speak to democracy, republicanism, federalism, constitutionalism, or polity.
LikeLike
I still stand by my comments about the poor and those who think it is the Churches responsibility to care for them. The guy who wrote the article was trying to show why the civil laws of Israel (Moses) were still relevant to modern governments and used the example of the arguments between Carlstadt and Luther to make his points. Luther was supposedly appealing to the nobles and governing officials so they could dress in fine clothing, live in nice buildings and build more Church buildings from the taxes they imposed rather than care for the poor- come on!!! Talk about reading history selectively to fit your point of view and agenda. There were other things going on between Luther and Carlstadt then the fights over what to do with the poor so the magisterial reformers could line their own pockets. The article was full of balderdash and propaganda. Fit for the Nazi’s and tyrrants like a lot of the Theonomists are (I could not resist that one).
LikeLike
You come away from that article with the impression that Luther was bribing and lobbying the magistrates in order to maintain his own personal peace and affluence. Is that just me or is that highly ridiculous? Luther was far from free of sins and misjudgments but I find it hard to buy this guys argument. He also misrepresents Luther’s understanding of the use of the Law. What to do with the poor in their congregations is a highly complex problem that individual Churches can work our amongst themselves. I do not see the poor knocking down the walls of Church buildings either. They usually are found congregating in the inner cities and survive through black market and con activities.
It may have been a big mistake for the Lutherans to ally themselves with the state but with the problems they were dealing with at the time it can be understood why they did it even though it did cause problems down the road.
LikeLike
“Paul says: And this goes for everyone: if someone really feels I have sinned and am in need of addressing, then you are supposed to come to me privately, not publicly. But no one does that. So what excuse is their for not following the biblical model? Seems to me like a convenient way to change the subject away from rational argument to emotional bullying.â€
“I am off to Church to get forgiveness for this grievous sin I committed against Paul. And that is not the only one I committed this week. May everyone’s Sabbath Day be filled with rest and renewal.”
John, don’t be intimidated by Paul and his so-called appeal to Matt 18. Paul accused me of lying and excusing Hitler on Zrim’s blog and I don’t rememeber receiving a private email first expressing these concerns. That’s just Paul being Paul.
LikeLike
Thanks Todd- I know, Paul seems to be in attack mode 24/7 (especially in regards to the way people present their arguments) and then is blind and miffed as to why people react the way they do to him.
LikeLike
After all, he is just trying to promote intellectual virtue and create thicker skin in people.
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, so let me get this straight. When we talk about Christian plumbing, we are not really talking about the actions but the motives?
Straighter, but not straight yet. Actions and motives cannot be fully decoupled. Until you’ve got that, you’ll not be straight.
At least, concerning what I’m talking about. But I think I have sufficient Scriptural warrant, with confirmation in the Reformed tradition, to speak thus.
Take a simple example: The BCO provides for deposition of a TE from office in the case of heresy. But it qualifies thus:
Heresy and schism may be of such a nature as to warrant deposition;
but errors ought to be carefully considered, whether they strike at the vitals
of religion and are industriously spread, or whether they arise from the
weakness of the human understanding and are not likely to do much injury.
Here, mental state and action are coupled together. If the error arises from the weakness of human understanding, it is a lesser offense. This is a matter of the mental state. If on the other hand, the error strikes at the vitals of religion, it is a more serious offense. This is a matter of the action itself.
This is but one example that immediately springs to mind. All over the Scripture and throughout Reformed thought, this appears to be true. Take a look at WCoF 22.
I don’t see the Bible addressing lots of doing of things. You say that the Bible does because it addresses motives. The right motives don’t produce the right actions if the actions require competence. And Scripture does not address competency.
No, that’s still not the case. You’re partly right: Scripture addresses motives a lot more than actions. But it undeniably addresses actions also. Even competence:
One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys. — Prov. 18.9.
DGH: What happens when things go wrong? What happens when the surgery is unsuccessful because of incompetency. Someone may have tried to glorify God, that was their aim. But they were absent from that one class that covered the circumstance that came up during the procedure. Or their fingers were insufficiently nimble and the nerve next to the eye got severed. Does that still glorify God?
Why do you need to know? I perceive in this line of questioning an “illegitimate quest for the ability to point fingers.”
God knows what glorifies Him; the surgeon will feel terrible regardless, and will have to rest in God’s grace; the victim of medical error will have to decide whether or not to sue.
I don’t see a place in here for you or me to step in and arbitrate.
DGH: Even our good works are tainted by sin. So motive + action + sin = glory of God?
Apparently so:
“These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance…” — there’s the motive + action again.
“Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreproveable in God’s sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections. ” — there’s the motive + action + sin = God’s glory.
I don’t have a problem with that, and I doubt you do, either.
LikeLike
Jeff, I find your responses to be almost what I’d expect to hear from Roger Clemens when under cross-examination from Congress about steroids.
To the question about the actions and motives of plumbing you respond with technical language from the BCO ON HERESY. Huh?
And to the question about things going wrong, you respond with “why do you want to know?” Well, it could be that I want to know because you keep insisting that motives and actions go together. So when actions go awry, even with the best motives, what happens to the glory of God?
Sorry, but your reasoning is not persuasive at all and seems to go overboard to protect a position that is patently obvious — the Bible does not speak about fixing leaks. But you want to find a way so that the Bible does.
And to competence, the Bible does not address the competence of plumbing (except now I guess because you think the Bible mentions competence — like the glory of God — it mentions the competency of plumbing).
So if motives and actions go together, I assume this is the basis for a school of Christian plumbing. There students will study the Bible about motives and Plumbing and Mechanical Service for plumbing. That sounds pretty 2k to me.
Jeff, I take you to be a reasonable and gracious guy. But really, this is strange.
LikeLike
Here’s to the Anabaptist leanings of Westmister West (huh?): I guess I have heard this before (2Kers are retreatists in regards to political and social involvement. Anabaptists seem to be passive/aggressive and schizophrenic towards culture; sometimes they want to Nuke culture and other times they retreat from the evil of creation (gnosticism).
Nik
Posted April 1, 2010 at 4:46 am | Permalink
Thank you so much for saving me out of the 2K Theology!! I’m one of those “young, restless and reformed” who have stumbled upon Calvinism. I also was saved from my pessimistic eschatology (into Postmill)! But… I’ve been listening to White Horse Inn as a pass-time (I loved their cultural exegesis and criticism of pop-evangelicalism). As I listened I became increasingly convicted of my desire for Christian society and my Theonomic itchings. I started to think I was wrong to want markets free, abortion eliminated, wars held accountable to scripture and Christian culture allowed to be expressed publicly. It is due to your site (and others) that have helped pull me out of 2K! This article is particularly helpful! (The American Vision article about the tyranny of 2Kers-especially Luther)
The hope is in Kuyper’s scriptural understanding of sphere sovereignty and people like you promoting an alternative to the anabaptist leanings of Westminster west.
Thank you for your service!! And thanks for not being afraid of Rushdoony !!!
It does take awhile to sort through the confusion of the issue of Christianity and culture.
LikeLike
Somebody prematurely put this post at #1
LikeLike
DGH: And to the question about things going wrong, you respond with “why do you want to know?†Well, it could be that I want to know because you keep insisting that motives and actions go together. So when actions go awry, even with the best motives, what happens to the glory of God?
You tell me. If Bob preaches Arminianism with the best of motives, does it glorify God?
DGH: Sorry, but your reasoning is not persuasive at all and seems to go overboard to protect a position that is patently obvious — the Bible does not speak about fixing leaks.
Maybe we better leave it there. What you really mean, of course, is that my reasoning doesn’t persuade *you.* But there might be more than one reason for that, no? Such as a resistance to seeing motives and actions as distinct but inseparable. Or a resistance to seeing good and necessary inferences that are plain as the nose on … well, my face, since I can’t see yours. 🙂
For my part, as a final summary, you have yet to address three important and interrelated questions:
(1) What cogent objection can be raised against my syllogism?
(2) I’ve argued that “Do all things to the glory of God” means that Scripture places a requirement (and therefore is not silent) on all things that we do.
I’ve cited Calvin in support of my reading. You’ve dismissed me as “going overboard”, but have provided no competing exegesis of the text. What does 1 Cor 10.31 mean, if not what I’ve said?
(3) If Scripture regulates only motives, and 2k supplies the actions, then why does Scripture have so much to say about our actions, even (at times) actions governing things in the common realm?
Isn’t your paradigm a vast oversimplification?
LikeLike
Jeff, it is an oversimplification to say that “do all to the glory of God” covers the actions of fixing leaks. I can do all I can to glorify God and it won’t fix my leaky faucet. So where do I go in the Bible for fixing a faulty faucet?
LikeLike
General revelation comes from God, right? Kuyperians have never argued that scripture teaches these various things, rather that they are creational norms (expressing the creational/providential rule of God) and must be studied and learned.
LikeLike
Jeff, you may have bowed out entirely, but I wonder if you think the Bible is authoritative for fixing leaks. Does it prescribe the way one should install, fix, or maintain plumbing fixtures? On the matter of authority, the Bible looks silent on most of daily life.
LikeLike
I did think we had reached an impasse. Plus, I was distracted by Mathison’s gripping account of Nevin v. Hodge in re the Lord’s Supper. (And now, I’m distracted by explaining it via Facebook to my Southern Baptist sister).
It would help if I knew your answers to my three questions above. I can guess, but that’s not really fair to you.
DGH: …but I wonder if you think the Bible is authoritative for fixing leaks. Does it prescribe the way one should install, fix, or maintain plumbing fixtures?
In general, no. The Bible places certain norms on fixing leaks, but leaves many, many degrees of freedom.
I’ve been trying to explain this by saying that Scripture speaks to everything we do, but not exhaustively to everything we do.
Somehow, that language doesn’t communicate, so I’ll try something else.
Think about a plumber as trying to accomplish certain goals. Obviously, fixing the leak is the main goal, but there are actually several: Earning a living, satisfying the customer, etc.
Scripture sets for us a new main goal: that we aim to please the Lord in all that we do (which includes plumbing).
That entails, among other things, that we will strive to be Lawful in our plumbing practices.
But by saying that, we don’t introduce new special information about water flow, pressure, solder, brazing torches, or whatever. Instead, it places norms around, boundaries on, our plumbing practices.
Scripture speaks, but does not speak exhaustively.
Now, the goal of glorifying God is not superfluous to plumbing — it’s not “I plumb, and at the same time I glorify God” — but instead I glorify God in my plumbing. We glorify God by plumbing as well as possible, trusting God that plumbing is our calling.
So there’s a unity of action (plumbing) and motive (God’s glory). This seems to me to be eminently Scriptural. In Scripture, (a) motivation drives the action (“out of the abundance of the heart…”); (b) action is a window on motivation (e.g., trees and fruit); and (c) actions are judged in accordance with the motives that spawned them.
You mocked my heresy example earlier (while passing up the more substantive points … ), but it was on point: the unity of action and motive are so pervasive that we see them even in obscure areas like heresy trials.
You seem to choke on the unity of action and motive, but the alternative is to say that motive and action are independent of each other. In which case, one wonders why Scripture tells us to “do things” to the glory of God.
And it also seems quite pietistic. I picture Dr. Hart glorifying God while plumbing (maybe, singing hymns or something), rather than glorifying God by your plumbing, which seems to be what Scripture commands.
—
Now, the goal of glorifying God might, possibly, occasionally have direct bearing on the mechanics of plumbing. You mentioned that obedience to the 8th commandment impels you not to shop at WalMart. In theory, the same kinds of issues might arise for the plumber. In practice, I would imagine that most of those would be “business practice” issues rather than hydrodynamic issues. But back in the 10th century, if one believed that baby’s blood could stop leaks, I can imagine a Christian plumber saying, “It might work, but I’m not gonna do it.”
But in general, the principle would be, unless the issue at hand is a matter of transgressing the Law, then there’s freedom.
So yes, the Scripture does happen to be silent about many of the details of plumbing. And of course, “silent about many things” is not the same as “silent” — which would of course mean “silent about all things.”
Given your stance on WalMart, it seems like you think Scripture is more “reserved” than “silent.”
LikeLike
Jeff, it’s hard to dismiss a response to a question, but man is this a long answer to a simple query — is the Bible authoritative (or even instructive) for fixing leaks? That question implies that a person with a leaky faucet should either consult the Bible or not as part of her effort to correct a problem.
I still don’t understand what is at stake for you with the idea that the Bible is silent on plumbing. When it comes to worship we have no trouble — at least, we who hold the RPW — that the Bible is silent on vestments and candles. That means that Reformed churches will not require vestments or candles for worship. But you want to say that the Bible speaks to everything. Plumbing and candles?
I also wonder about your understanding of human motivation. This is where I see an affinity between Framean biblicism and neo-Calvinism — always this search for authentic motives or beliefs which then will inform everything we do. I just don’t see many people living their lives that way. Maybe that’s wrong. But again, if the faucet is leaking I’m not sure a philosophical analysis of my motivation is a good approach. Seems like the triumph of the nerds.
And I can think of other ways of interpreting “do all to the glory of God” other than to argue that it means motives and actions must be unified. One might be doing things in such a way as not to bring glory to yourself.
Plus, I put plumbing in the love of neighbor category, not love of God. And that’s where I put the eighth commandment. I would rather see my neighbors get my business, not Sam Walton, who is not my neighbor.
LikeLike
DGH: Jeff, it’s hard to dismiss a response to a question, but man is this a long answer to a simple query — is the Bible authoritative (or even instructive) for fixing leaks? That question implies that a person with a leaky faucet should either consult the Bible or not as part of her effort to correct a problem.
Maybe it’s not the right question.
How about this:
Q: Does the Bible give us instructions for fixing leaks?
A: No.
Q: Does the Bible tell us anything about fixing leaks?
A: Yes. Fix leaks to the glory of God.
(which, as you point out, is mostly about loving one’s neighbor).
See, problem with the “How to fix leaks” question or the “way to fix leaks” question is that how and the way are ambiguous phrases. So is “Is the Bible authoritative…?” Hence, a complicated answer that tries to clarify the ambiguity.
DGH: When it comes to worship we have no trouble — at least, we who hold the RPW — that the Bible is silent on vestments and candles. That means that Reformed churches will not require vestments or candles for worship.
Golly, don’t you see? The RPW is *not* silent on vestments and candles. Because neither is in Scripture, the RPW says, “No.” That’s not silence.
You have all the pieces in front of you, you agree to the conclusion, now just connect the dots!
If Scripture were truly silent on this issue, there wouldn’t be a definite answer to the question “Can we use candles and vestments?”
In other words, there’s direct speech, and then there’s speech-by-consequence. What I see in you is the tendency to say that anything other than direct speech is no speech at all. And besides being deliberately obtuse, that also runs afoul of the expectations that Jesus placed on his disciples (and the Pharisees), that they see and understand the implications of Scripture.
DGH: I also wonder about your understanding of human motivation. This is where I see an affinity between Framean biblicism and neo-Calvinism — always this search for authentic motives or beliefs which then will inform everything we do. I just don’t see many people living their lives that way. Maybe that’s wrong. But again, if the faucet is leaking I’m not sure a philosophical analysis of my motivation is a good approach. Seems like the triumph of the nerds.
In practical life, I don’t run around asking people to have genuine motivations. In fact, I operate on the assumption that even I don’t fully know the motivations of the heart, and that I’m not in full control of those motives anyway.
But I do assume that motivations are the underlying bass notes or fundamentals that move us in certain directions. So the advice I give concerning motivations is
(1) Use your actions (and feelings) as windows on your motivations.
(2) Repent when the Spirit brings wrong motives to your attention.
(3) Trust God to work on the motivations in His timing.
I think you fear a kind of micromanaging, but that’s not really what’s going on with me.
DGH: And I can think of other ways of interpreting “do all to the glory of God†other than to argue that it means motives and actions must be unified. One might be doing things in such a way as not to bring glory to yourself.
Then lay that out for me. What do you actually think the passage means?
LikeLike
That last random comment about a kids’ camp (?) made me think a bit about this thread, your previous discussion on professions done to the glory of God, where you are talking particularly about plumbing and surgery… I haven’t read every line in this loooong serious of comments so apologies if I am bringing up a passage which has already been exhaustively discussed. I like it though:
“Listen and hear my voice,
pay attention and hear what I say.
When a farmer plows for planting,
does he plow continually?
Does he keep on breaking up and harrowing the soil?
When he has leveled the surface,
does he not sow caraway and scatter cummin?
Does he not plant wheat in its place,
barley in its plot,
and spelt in its field?
His God instructs him
and teaches him the right way.
Caraway is not threshed with a sledge,
nor is a cartwheel rolled over cummin;
caraway is beaten out with a rod,
and cummin with a stick.
Grain must be ground to make bread:
so on does not go on threshing it forever.
Though he drives the wheels of his threshing cart over it,
his horses do not grind it.
All this also comes from the Lord Almighty,
wonderful in counsel and magnificent in wisdom.”
Isaiah 28:23-29, NIV
LikeLike
Low iron can be detected by laboratory tests and can be corrected by taking iron pills. It may take a little research for you to find the remedy that will work best for your particular situation. Biotin works as an anti aging agent and helps to produce keratin in preventing gray hair and hair loss.
My blog post … hair restoration boston
LikeLike
Thanks, hair restoration. What do I do about too much vinegar?
LikeLike