70 thoughts on “Neo-Calvinists Should Be Afraid, Very Afraid”

1. It’s quite easy to reconcile the two perspectives once you realize they’re talking about two different things. Smith is addressing the effects of common grace in the left hand kingdom, Calvin is writing of the right hand kingdom. I don’t see the contradiction you do because I don’t think they’re attempting to address the same aspect of God’s rule.

   I don’t believe there is any essential contradiction between traditional 2K theology and neo-Calvinism. In fact the two basic principles of neo-Calvinism, the antithesis and sphere sovereignty, line up with the right hand kingdom and the left hand kingdom respectively. If you want to get a true comparison between neo-Calvinism and Calvin you would do well to line up quotes where they are writing about the same kingdom.

   LikeLike

2. Brian, it seems to me it’s a pretty fair comparison since Calvin and Smith are both talking about redemption. I don’t for the life of me ever see Calvin talking about redemption to describe white wine (and he was a Frenchman). Especially Chardonnay, the drink of liberal Anglicans.

   LikeLike

3. If you want to see where the this worldly view of neo-Calvinism leads just take a look at the Anglo-Catholic movement. Do you really wanna be like The Episcopal Church???

   LikeLike

4. We know Jamie Smith. He is imbibing in a mixture of Pentacostalism, Neomarxism, and Radical Orthodoxy. If he presents his “yes-we-can-save-the-world” schlock as neocalvinism, that’s hardly neocalvinism’s fault. Why not quote from H.VanTil ? Does H.VanTil say it’s all about us saving the world?

   LikeLike

5. Baus, so why are not neo-Calvinists questioning Smith? When are you going to take historical development into account and where neo-Calvinism leads?

   LikeLike

6. An excellent article on the website DGH links to is the one by Dr. William Young from WTS, Vol. 36. It contains the most cogent reasons to be anti-neo-Calvinism. But then, it is probably too pietistic for some. A simple reading of Calvin’s commentary on Genesis reveals that he saw no cultural mandate there. (Why do they link to something that’s agin’ ’em? Maybe they only read the title.)

   LikeLike

7. @Eliza – Do you have a link or title for the article you mention above? – thanks

   LikeLike

8. You can go to The Westminster Presbyterian [www.westminsterconfession.org] and find it under “Doctrines of Grace” or do a search for “Historic Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism” but you cannot link to it without permission. Also this version has been edited–not sure how much.

   LikeLike

9. “Redemption smells like the oaky tease of a Napa Chardonnay that births anticipation in our taste buds.” Where (in the world) do they get this crap?

   LikeLike

10. Richard, I love watching Roger Federer win set points with passing shots down the line at the baseline from between his ankles, and I love the smell of “cold dog” in November (add dog-breath while you’re at it, please), but that smells like creation to me, not redemption.

    LikeLike

11. @Eliza – much obliged

    LikeLike

12. Richard,

    I am right there with you. I mean oaky or not, Chardonay is a ladies wine right? If the article wasn’t cited, I would have assumed this was another gushing submission for a Christian college newspaper written by a 20 year old lit major, or by Max Lucado. No wonder why some neo-Cal’s here are distancing themselves Smith.

    LikeLike

13. Darryl, neocals do object to Smith. And, you know, I’d be the last person to say that “party discipline” shouldn’t be stricter!
    If you measure J.K.A.Smith against H.VanTil, then you’ve got something to go on. We all realize that distinguishing aberration/distortion/corruption from positive development in continuity can be hard work at times… but you can’t legitimately turn that into a dismissal of the reality of such difference. Ask yourself why Calvin doesn’t lead to Barth, and the analogy may help you see the point.

    LikeLike

14. New the blog here so pardon my comments if they are a day late.

    Daryl, are you suggesting that for Calvin Christ’s redemptive work has nothing to do at all with this physical world when you state that Christ’s work is purely spiritual, eternal and heavenly? If so what do you do with his comments on Romans 8 and Isa. 65 and other places where he seems to state that Christ will restore this earth and the original order of things?

    Also, I fail to see the logic of using use JDH’s Too Change the World as a passing shot at Smith, when Hunter’s views seem to line up more closely with Smith’s and critically diverge from your 2k perspective. Indeed Hunter seems quite critical of a 2k perspective ( see Smith’s interview with Hunter, which is posted at The Other Journal’s website)

    LikeLike

15. Baus, what neo Cals are objecting to Smith? Better, what neo-Cals are objecting to Smith the way they object to DVD?

    The Barth analogy is rotten historically. It took 3 1/2 centuries to go from Calvin to Barth. It took less than fifty years to go from H. Van Til to Smith.

    LikeLike

16. Gregg, I don’t have Calvin’s commentaries memorized, so you’ll have to familiarize me with those commentaries. But even here your “seems to state” suggests that re-creation is not what Calvin necessarily has in view. I don’t believe that Calvin is a gnostic. But he does believe the kingdom now is spiritual because the physical is marred by sin and no amount of Chardonnay is going to change the fallenness of our situation. Only the return of Christ and the resurrection will. I find it amazing that anyone who takes sin seriously would think that our cultural endeavor actually stops or resists the influence of sin — have neo-Cals never heard that good works are as filthy rags?

    I’ll still use the first two-thirds of Hunters book against Smith and against Hunter. It is a flawed book, very good in its analysis of current Protestant engagement with culture, not so good on the remedy. If you ask me, Hunter spent too much time hanging out with neo-Cals.

    LikeLike

17. “Only the return of Christ and the resurrection will. I find it amazing that anyone who takes sin seriously would think that our cultural endeavors actually stops or resists the influence of sin — have neo-Cals never heard that good works are as filthy rags?”

    Though Gregg’s question was actually about Christ’s redemptive work rather than our own. Using the language of redemption rather than recreation for whatever Christ does when he returns to earth doesn’t necessarily negate any of what you’ve said above.

    When you were interviewed on Office Hours a while back you mentioned that your journey towards being Reformed started off at L’Abri – it would be interesting to hear of what you think about some of the cultural transformation ideas held by their associates now that you are where you are.

    LikeLike

18. Chris, not trying to be evasive, but I haven’t kept tabs on L’Abri’s leaders’ thoughts. The neo-Cals in North America give me enough work.

    LikeLike

19. I’ll still use the first two-thirds of Hunters book against Smith and against Hunter. It is a flawed book, very good in its analysis of current Protestant engagement with culture, not so good on the remedy. If you ask me, Hunter spent too much time hanging out with neo-Cals.

    I’ll ask you one more time, Mr. Man: kindly remove yourself from inside my head.

    LikeLike

20. Yeah–I’m not sure that Hunter’s “remedy” of “faithful presence” isn’t so bad; this strikes me as being what the Reformed view of “vocation” is about if you tweak a little of what Hunter is saying.

    LikeLike

21. “Chris, not trying to be evasive, but I haven’t kept tabs on L’Abri’s leaders’ thoughts. The neo-Cals in North America give me enough work.”

    Okay – I just assumed they were views you yourself had held at one point before moving away from them. They tend to be along neo-calvinist lines but perhaps a little more systematized.

    LikeLike

22. Darryl, thanks for the reply. I think you are right that Calvin’s comments in Rom. and Isa. are speaking about the work of Christ upon his return. I am just trying to figure out how you understand Christ’s work in relation to creation.

    But I am still a bit puzzled about your notion that this present kingdom is purely spiritual. If Jesus came to establish a purely spiritual kingdom then why did he spend so much time during his ministry doing physical things (i.e, healing, feeding, changing water into wine, etc.)? Also, if his work was purely for spiritual purposes then why, when John the Baptists asks, if he is the one to come, he doesn’t point to all the conversions or disciples he has made. But instead points out all the physical things he has done. Or lastly, when in the temple at Nazareth, he reads from Isa. he picks this passage which again suggests that he is here to bring physical as well as spiritual healing. Do these physical things have nothing to do with this present kingdom he came to establish through his ministry? If so then this seems an odd way to go about establishing spiritual kingdom.

    I am confused as well about your statement that “I find it amazing that anyone who takes sin seriously would think that our cultural endeavor actually stops or resists the influence of sin — have neo-Cals never heard that good works are as filthy rags?”

    I am not sure what you mean by this because it seems obvious that our cultural endeavors do stop or resist the influence of sin. For example, whenever, we find a means for clean water in a culture that is seriously harmed by unclean water, our cultural endeavors stop or at least resist the influence of sin. Whenever our cultural endeavors find a way for the poor to overcome their poverty, our cultural endeavors stop or resist the influence of sin.

    Lastly (and I promise!), I am confused by your comments that our good works are as filthy rags. Are you suggesting that they have no merit whatsoever? Even Calvin, in his comments on this passage states “There are some who frequently quote this passage, in order to prove that so far are our works from having any merit in them, that they are rotten and loathsome in the sight of God. But this appears to me to be at variance with the Prophet’s meaning …

    But as I say I am confused by what you mean by this statement and perhaps am not tracking with you.

    I ask these questions not so much as critique but in interest. I count myself as a neo-Cal but am interested in 2k perspective because of some the directions I see neo-Calvinism being taken. Thanks for the blog. I have been enjoying it since I came across it a couple of months ago.

    LikeLike

23. Pingback: Old Life Blog – Neo-Calvinists Should Be Afraid, Very Afraid « Pilgrimage to Geneva

24. Gregg, I don’t think I said it is “purely” spiritual, as if I deny the body or the resurrection. But the kingdom of Christ is fundamentally spiritual, not civil, political, financial, or familial. And because the body will die because of sin, redemption is not going to change that physical reality. Even Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead — you can’t get a gooder good work than that — was not sufficient to overcome the ravages of sin. Lazarus eventually died. The blind whom Jesus healed eventually lost their sight in death, the lame eventually lost their capacity to walk in death.

    This is why I would say all efforts at re-creation are usually much less than their proponents allege but also never change the reality of sin and its consequences in this life. That’s why I say our cultural endeavors do not stop sin or its consequences. Nor do our good works escape sin — they are filthy rags. I do not believe our good works have any merit for salvation. God does reward good works but it is out of grace and not out of justice. The righteousness we have in Christ is a righteousness that conformed to all of God’s demands for justice.

    BTW, the point about clean water is precisely what I am talking about regarding the difference between creation and redemption. Clean water is good. But it does not save. That was the point — at least one of them — of Christ’s interaction with the Samaritan women. The water in that well would do her no spiritual good.

    LikeLike

25. First, Napa’s flat over-oaked Chardonnays are the embarrassment of California vinophiles. There’s been a partial redemption (in the non-eternal sense) through some good unoaked Chardonnays, and even better through the development of some outstanding Viognier and Syrah in the Central Cost.

    Second, I’ve done that drive, Darryl, too many times.

    Third, I think we need four categories, not two, perhaps along the lines of the Nolan chart (neo/paleo, but also doctrine of creation/no doctrine of creation):

    1) There are paleo-Calvinists with a robust doctrine of creation and future resurrection. The recognize an abiding goodness of creation in the midst of the fallen world, but like to draw a an absolute distinction between worship of the redeemer on Sunday and their enjoyment of the creation the rest of the week.

    2) But there are also paleo-Calvinists with woefully inadequate doctrines of creation, for whom the only operative categories are fallen world (i.e. the physical) and spiritual (i.e. non-physical) redemption, with the future blessed hope of disembodied existence through all eternity, who can’t really figure out what role earthy things like the water of baptism, the bread and wine of communion, or the visible church have to do with salvation. Sometimes it’s tough to distinguish these folk from plain ol’ fundamentalists. 2K defenders don’t like to be lumped with these dualistic folk.

    3) There are neo-Calvinists who couldn’t distinguish creation from redemption if their life depended on it. Ironically, they have a something in common with group 2, because they don’t have a doctrine of creation either, so in order to justify appreciation for earthly things (and sometimes worldly things), they lump everything they like under the broad rubric “redemption,” whether forgiveness of sins or consumerist wine. Sometimes it gets difficult to distinguish these folk from social gospelers or plain ol’ liberals. “My Hope is Built” or “It’s a Wonderful World,” it’s all good.

    4) But there are also neo-Calvinists who distinguish creation from redemption, with a robust doctrine of both. But rather than segregating the two realms into hermetically-sealed boxes as in #1, they believe that the redemptive recreation of the individual Christian into the image of Christ has cultural repercussions, that a Spiritually-renewed pursuit of the cultural mandate has redemptive implications even if it is not itself redemptive.

    Last statement in this long comment: NeoCalvinism of the #4 sort of course has something new in it, namely a reaction to the French, Industrial and Scientific Revolutions. Christians of the 19th-21st century face a world that Calvin couldn’t have imagined. No one thinks NeoCalvinism is just John Calvin restated, so criticizing NeoCalvinism for not being found explicitly in Calvin seems rather pointless to me. The Confessions go beyond Calvin as well, but do so faithfully to the Augustinian/Calvinist theological tradition.

    But then again, PaleoCalvinism of the #1 variety also has something very new in it, namely the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Most defenses of 2K that I’ve seen rest on an assumption of the separation of church and state as foreign to Calvin as a General Motors assembly line. So, claiming PaleoCalvinism is just plain faithfulness to Calvin while mixing in a substantial amount of Jeffersonianism seems rather misleading.

    LikeLike

26. Russ, this is a fairly useful grid. My problem is that I don’t know any #2’s that I would not call fundie rather than Reformed. But also I don’t know what “redemptive implications that are not redemptive” are. You could run a whole lot of oak casks through that one. As for the difference between 3 and 4, I’m betting the biggest is numbers. The neo-Cal publications and institutions I see and read, from Dort and Calvin to Comment and World, don’t stop to make a distinction between creation and redemption very long.

    On neo-Cals reaction to the modern world, here again I see a lot of confusion. I get it, the French Rev. was bad. But many neo-Cals are hyper modern when it comes to science and technology. In other words, I don’t recognize a coherent critique of modernity but rather an inconsistent application of the anti-thesis. I mean, isn’t Stephen Jobs as bad as Robespierre?

    I do find it interesting that even, you, Russ, come up with the Jeffersonian jab. This appears to be the feature of 2k that neo-Cals just can’t abide, a political order that does not recognize God formally. Every 2k writer I’ve seen acknowledges the difference between Calvin and now. (Most of the neo-Cal writing on Calvin’s 500th never made such an acknowlegement and most repudiated Calvin’s essential otherworldly outlook.) So does this mean that every neo-Cal is committed to a magistrate who oversees the church and repudiates false religion? In other words, are neo-Cals pining for a political order before 1789? Calvin at least could recognize the virtues of the classical polities. I don’t see that capacity among neo-Cals, unless they’ve been drinking a lot of Chardonnay.

    LikeLike

27. Those last 2 posts were very helpful in trying to sort through a lot of the Christianity and culture confusion. The more you read the good objections to 2K (Mathison being a prime example), the more complex a good defense of 2K becomes. The biblical support for 2K is resting on assumptions that are difficult to exegete adequately from the biblical text (as Mathison has shown). For example: 1) Mathison states: “The main point of potential disagreement (between 2K theology and Neo-Calism) concerns how the ascension of Christ to the right hand of God affected his reign over the unbelieving nations in the present time between the first and second advents.”; 2) Mathison states: ” Van Drunen’s real point of disagreement appears to be the idea found in Neo-Calvinist writers that ‘the salvation or redemption brought by Christ is essentially restoration or re-creation. Van Drunen believes there is complete discontinuity between the present creation and the new creation.”; 3) Van Drunen states: “Those who hold a traditional Protestant view of justification consistently should not find a redemptive transformationist perspective attractive. As some of the reformers grasped, a 2K doctrine is a proper companion to a Protestant doctrine of justification.” Mathison replies: “This seems to me to be over-reaching. It is not helpful, charitable, or correct to suggest that only those who adhere to 2K theology can consistently hold the Protestant doctrine of justification. Van Drunen does attempt in later chapters to support this claim, but the attempt is not successful.” Van Drunen tries to use Calvin’s Institutes (Book 3 chapter 19) as the basis for his argument. Again Mathison states: “According to Van Drunen’s explanation of 2K theology , Christians exist within two kingdoms . Calvin’s explanation is that the two kingdoms exist within each Christian.” Another quote from Mathison: “This section of Calvin (Book 3 chapter 19) does not support Van Drunen’s claim that only those who adhere to 2K theology can consistently hold to the Protestant doctrine of justification.”; 4) Van Drunen gives us a big picture of the biblical story using the Pauline concept of the two Adams. Van Drunen states: “there is no better way to summarize the story of scripture.” Mathison does not see any difference between the two-Adam concept of summarizing scripture and the Neo-Cal Creation, Fall and Redemption model. Van Drunen states that Adam’s original goal “as an image bearer of God was not only to pursue cultural activity in this world but was also to enter the world-to-come. Had Adam been obedient, ‘God would have brought him into a new creation.’ (the world-to-come). Far surpassing the delightful and sinless world into which Adam was originally created. Again Van Drunen: “it is important to remember that this present world was never meant to exist forever. The first Adam was commissioned to finish his task in this world and then rule in the world-to-come.” Mathison replies: “I do not know whether this particular point is absolutely necessary to 2K theology, but it is certainly important to VanDrunen’s presentation of it because it influences almost every other argument in the book.”

    So, the point being, these above 4 assumptions are almost impossible to glean from the scriptural text according to Mathison. The implied implication is that the 2Kers are going to have to explain these assumptions better.

    LikeLike

28. One other quote from Mathison that is significant here: “This idea (assumption #4) is part of the reason, for example, that VanDrunen cannot see how neo-Calvinists can consistently hold their view and the Reformed doctrine of justification. It is also a major part of VanDrunen’s argument regarding the value of our cultural labors. It is crucial to his version of two kingdoms theology, and yet, as we will see, it rests on a very shaky exegetical foundation.”

    LikeLike

29. Where is this Mathison article of which you speak?

    LikeLike

30. Jeff,

    It is over at the Ligonier site in the book review section. I would link it but am not good at doing that. I do not think you will have much trouble finding it. Keith Mathison wrote the review of David VanDrunen’s Living in the Two Kingdoms.

    LikeLike

31. You can also link it at the confessional outhouse and Jason Stellman’s site Creed Code Cult.

    LikeLike

32. Darryl:

    I’m fine with just calling #2s fundies, just as we should call #3s liberals. I read a review of Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth on a Reformed website written by a Presbyterian elder that didn’t care much for the book, specifically that she had failed to recognize that we are “essentially sinful.” That is, at best, fundamentalism, but really something worse. Perhaps I’m only speaking personally, but I find much more in common with Christians who have a robust doctrine of creation that those who don’t, whatever other labels may apply. Give me _All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes_ over books on the redemptive power of pop culture any day of the week, including the Sabbath. As to neocalvinist you think fail to make sufficient distinctions between creation and redemption, you may be right but I’d suggest maybe they’re still in fundie-recovery mode.

    NeoCalvinist critiques of technology exist – Egbert Schuurman comes to mind.

    On Jefferson, I think you misunderstand; I’m talking about your rhetoric, not church/state issues. I’m all for the First Amendment, and I think any genuine application of sphere sovereignty would put up at least a pretty good fence between church and state. What I’m saying is that a guy who says this:

    “That doesn’t mean that Paul or Calvin didn’t have pre-theories. But it is the case that they were not making pre-theory part of their theorizing, the way neo-Cals do. That doesn’t make neo-Cals wrong. It does make them anachronistic to claim an older pedigree.”

    Should recognize that it’s also anachronistic to claim 2Kism with a Jeffersonian chaser is just good ol’ paleoCalvinism straight up.

    LikeLike

33. But, Russ, what you’re missing and what most neo-Cals miss is that paleo-Calvinism was otherworldly. I can’t for the life of me find in Calvin any notion of transforming the world, or a view of creation that made him optimistic about its possibilities. And it is precisely the otherworldliness of Calvin that neo-Cals run from and that paleos affirm. In which case, the Jefferson chaser is really inconsequential in the larger scheme of things, because this world is passing away. But for neo-Cals Jefferson is the great menace, almost as bad as Robespierre. Paleos sit by and wonder, why all the alarm?

    So maybe your high view of creation masks a flawed view of redemption, that is, that redemption will really change this world. And that is also where I think neo-Cals falter — they refashion the otherworldly character of salvation to acquire a high view of creation.

    LikeLike

34. Hope you don’t mind an interjection. I’ll just make this one point and disappear again.

    DGH: …what you’re missing and what most neo-Cals miss is that paleo-Calvinism was otherworldly. I can’t for the life of me find in Calvin any notion of transforming the world, or a view of creation that made him optimistic about its possibilities.

    The central problem for your read of Calvin is that you must take the very existence of Geneva and throw it into the bin of “Calvin had holdover Constantinianism that kept him from being consistent.”

    The problem with that is that you must presume that (a) Calvin would be glaringly inconsistent and never notice it, and (b) that all of Calvin’s work in Geneva, and its subsequent development in Reformed thought on government until 1789, is traceable to Constantinianism.

    That seems implausible. Van Drunen makes an effort to make it plausible — a good effort, I might add — but it doesn’t pass the gut test.

    Calvin was very, very rigorous and consistent in his theological method. While it is possible for him to be inconsistent here or there, if he had been as truly non-transformational as you say, his wife or Bucer or someone would have surely pointed out that Geneva was in direct conflict with his theology.

    And if he were truly as “Constantinian” as you think, surely he would have given a hat-tip here or there to that fact? But in fact, he seems to reject Constantinianism in Inst 4.20.3.

    So something other than Constantinianism must explain Calvin’s view of the magistrate. And here (IMNSHO) it is:

    When those who bear the office of magistrate are called gods, let no one suppose that there is little weight in that appellation. It is thereby intimated that they have a commission from God, that they are invested with divine authority and, in fact, represent the person of God, as whose substitutes they in a manner act. This is not a quibble of mine, but is the interpretation of Christ. “If Scriptures” says He, “called them gods to whom the word of God came.” What is this but that the business was committed to them by God to serve him in their office, and (as Moses and Jehoshaphat said to the judges whom they were appointing over each of the cities of Judah) to exercise judgement, not for man, but for God? — Inst. 4.20.4.

    There it is — the magistrate is appointed by God and is therefore accountable to God.

    This has nothing, nothing to do with religion serving the interests of the state (old Rome) nor with a nation taking on a Christian identity (Theodosius), but rather with the magistrate being required of God to be just. And what is justice? Giving each his due. Including, says Calvin, giving God his due:

    The duty of magistrates, its nature, as described by the word of God, and the things in which it consists, I will here indicate in passing. That it extends to both tables of the law, did Scripture not teach, we might learn from profane writers, for no man has discoursed of the duty of magistrates, the enacting of laws, and the common weal, without beginning with religion and divine worship. Thus all have confessed that no polity can be successfully established unless piety be its first care, and that those laws are absurd which disregard the rights of God, and consult only for men.

    This, my friend, is paleo-Calvinism, and not Constantinianism. The magistrate lives coram deo and is accountable for the conduct of his office towards God.

    LikeLike

35. There it is — the magistrate is appointed by God and is therefore accountable to God.

    Jeff, I don’t have my ICR handy to read the context, but by just reading what you provide I don’t readily see how you get the second half of your conclusion. I could be wrong, but I wonder if who Calvin had in mind were those who contemplated some form or another of disobedience to their magistrates rather than those magistrates who contemplated unaccountability to God. Consider VanDrunen’s account (NL2K, page 121):

    Calvin’s convictions on this subject [civil disobedience] were, on the whole, strikingly conservative. In an extended series of discussions toward the close of the Institutes, he hailed the honor and reverence due to magistrates as a consequence of their appointment by God [ICR 4.20. 22-29]. Calvin exhorts Christians that they must “with ready minds prove our obedience to them, whether in complying with edicts, or in paying tribute, or in undertaking public offices and burdens, which relate to the common defense, or in executing any other orders.” [ICR 4.20. 23]. He goes on to make clear that this applies to bad rulers as well as good: “But if we have respect to the Word of God, it will lead us farther, and make us subject not only to the authority of those princes who honestly and faithfully perform their duty toward us, but all princes, by whatever means they have so become, although there is nothing they less perform than the duty of princes.” [ICR 4.20. 25]. “The only thing remaining for you,” Calvin adds shortly thereafter, “will be to receive their commands, and be obedient to their words.” [ICR 4.20. 26].

    So, it would seem that Calvin had much more concern that believers obey their magistrates than for magistrates to understand themselves as accountable to God. I might suggest, then, another conclusion upon reading Calvin: There you have it—the magistrate is appointed by God and therefore you must obey him as God’s vice-regent. Very Romans 13-ish.

    This, my friend, is paleo-Calvinism, and not Constantinianism. The magistrate lives coram deo and is accountable for the conduct of his office towards God.

    Well, as has been pointed out, if the implication of Calvin’s words here are that religious idolaters are to be civilly punished, then the revisions of Belgic 36 and WCF 23.3 stand with Kuyper who declared that “We do not at all hide the fact that we disagree with Calvin, our Confessions, and our Reformed theologians.” If Calvin thinks that good and successful polity cannot be contemplated and executed without beginning with religion and divine worship then it is disagreed. Otherwise, I don’t know how we can vote for a Mormon or Roman Catholic to civilly preside over us.

    LikeLike

36. Jeff, I don’t know where you think 2kers deny any of what Calvin wrote and you cite? Yes, the magistrate is appointed by God. Why else do you think some of us have trouble with resisting those appointed by God. We also believe that God is sovereign and that everyone, including magistrates, will answer to God on judgment day. I don’t see the big revelation here.

    What is curious, though, is how many 2k critics and kvetchers somehow think they are being true to Calvin while also allowing the likes of Servetus to live next door and prosper in the modern state. Seriously, Jeff, if Calvin and Geneva are the standard, you are as much r2k as I am. Again, where’s the revelation for the critics of 2k?

    But the point you lose in your response is the otherworldly character of Calvin’s piety. For all that he upheld in Geneva and its political order, I have yet to see any of the idea of progress or dominion that neo-Cal’s revel in. The kingdom was coming through the church, not through city council.

    And where 2kers excel is in their capacity to recognize the goodness of Geneva’s city council without turning it into the kingdom of God. In that case, 2kers follow Calvin and anti-2kers show their fundy underbelly by needing to turn something that is only good into something that is saved. I may disagree with Calvin on the nature of the good society — after all, he was not pro-religious freedom or the kind of demographic pluralism it requires — but I have a better ability to see the difference between law and gospel than anti-2kers. Which means that 2kers can assert the incredible liberty of the gospel without then needing to think that the polity requires such liberty. And it also means that we can also live with oppression in the civil polity while understanding that the gospel is true no matter what our conditions in this life.

    This, my interlocutor, is paleo-Calvinism. Actually, it’s also Augustinianism and a long way from Dooyeweerdianism or its neo- progeny.

    LikeLike

37. Darryl,

    In one of your posts (which I cannot find now) you linked an essay on neo-calvinism that defined their Creation, Fall, Redemption model. Some guy asked a question about the differences between paleo- cal and neo-cal. I think he was from Scotland if I remember correctly. Anyways, you linked this essay for him and I lost it from my computer. I was in the middle of reading it. Could you please link that article again. I would greatly appreciate it if it does not take too much time to do so.

    LikeLike

38. John, I think this was it.

    LikeLike

39. Thanks, I appreciate it. I will make sure not to do that again. Thought you might have it at your fingertips. I went through all the posts that are up and could not find it.

    LikeLike

40. OOps, you did have it- my bad. Thought you were being a SA. Yes, that was it. Gracias Senoir!!!!

    LikeLike

41. Of course I wouldn’t just be able to post one thing and have it be crystal clear. What was I thinking?

    DGH: Jeff, I don’t know where you think 2kers deny any of what Calvin wrote and you cite?

    No, you don’t deny it. I know that. But you explain on the basis of Calvin’s (supposed) residual Constantinianism. My point is, that explanation doesn’t actually explain.

    And my point has a consequence. If Calvin were simply being Constantinian and inconsistent, then we could improve on Calvin by taking away his Constantinian tendencies.

    And in fact, that seems to be what the “pc-2k project” is all about: Retain Calvin because we believe him to be theologically sound in the main, while tidying up his Constantinian inconsistency.

    But what if … tinkering with Calvin’s view of the state causes other features of Calvinism to break? If you’ve misdiagnosed the impulse that leads Calvin to claim that the magistrate owes allegiance to God first and foremost, then it might be the case that “pc-2k” leaves the orbit of Calvin in more profound ways.

    For example, it may be the case that “pc-2k” denies the personhood of God (!!!). Consider Calvin’s rationale for his view on the magistrate: God is a person whose rights ought to be respected. It’s pretty clear that pc-2k denies that God’s rights ought to be respected in the civic arena (you let Providence take care of that). Would Calvin view you therefore as denying the personhood of God?

    That’s a profoundly disturbing possibility.

    And neo-Cals, then, would not be “those don’t get that Calvin is otherworldly”, but rather those who “get that Calvin wasn’t pc-2k.”

    I’ve said too much, so I’ll really bow back out and let Russ carry on; he’s doing a fine job.

    LikeLike

42. Darryl,

    How would you defend your 2K theology against this quote from the Mathison critique of Van Drunen’s new book? Or, perhaps you have no problem with it: “There is an important point here that VanDrunen does not specifically address in his book, namely the relevance of the Old Testament prophets addresses to rulers and nations in the common kingdom (both pre-exile and exile prophets). Using the two kingdoms terminology, the Old Testament prophets were ministers within the redemptive kingdom, yet their writings contain numerous oracles to the nations of the common kingdom. Most of these oracles are oracles of judgment, condemning the nations of the common kingdom for their sins (some of the sins condemned were persecution of God’s people, sins against natural law, idolatry and more). On occasion, however, the nations are even called on to repent (Jonah and Ninevah)…….It may not be the case that all advocates of 2K theology object to ministers addressing the nations and rulers of the common kingdom in such a way as part of the ministry of the Church, but there are those who do, so the subject deserves more attention and the relevance of these texts (he goes through all the texts that the prophets spoke to neighboring nations) should be explored in more depth.”

    It seems to me that about .05% of Israels population would be qualified to speak against the nations, but that being the case they still did it. God specifically called these prophets to do it too. Perhaps there is some reason to believe (because we now have a completed canon) that this type of prophetic activity is not relevant to our day and age. Mathison seems to think it is.

    LikeLike

43. Darryl: I think you’re jumping over my point to get to something else, but that’s ok if you see Calvinian otherworldliess as the key issue. If so, can you define otherworldliness for me? I’m sure there are some connotations to the term you don’t want to claim. 17th c. antinomians like Anne Hutchinson were certainly otherworldly, but I’m sure not what you have in mind. And specifically I’m wondering why a faithful Christian life should be easily characterized as otherworldly or this-worldly. Calvin could certainly wax eloquent about the wonders of this world as well as explore the sorrows of this world. If neocalvinists get it wrong in one direction, overreaction to the other extreme certainly isn’t the answer. So a definition would be helpful.

    I think I had my cocktail metaphors wrong – the Jeffersonianism would be more a mixer than a chaser, I guess. I’m more of a wine guy.

    And yes, I affirm redemption will really change this world, though the causal factor there is the Redeemer, not the redeemed. Exegesis from fundamentalists, Lutherans, and (at least some some – all? I don’t know) 2kers that this world will be utterly annihilated and the new heavens and new earth will be God starting again from scratch strike me as unconvincing. I’m not sure this is a defining factor, though since plenty of Reformed non-neocalvinists would reject this. Maybe some 2kers too?

    LikeLike

44. Jeff, you really need to think this through. There is the theology of Calvin, and there is the polity in which he lived. 2kers, at least this one, agree with Calvin’s theology, even his understanding of the magistrate’s vocation — that he is accountable to God. Someone may then live out that calling in different ways, say as the president of Geneva’s city council in 1550 or as George W. Bush. But because you seem to have difficulty with Christian liberty, at least I think you do, you don’t seem to be able to recognize that Bush may have been as faithful as a magistrate as Geneva’s mayor.

    And you also skirt the issue of your own culpability. You may think you are following Calvin’s view of the magistrate, all the while you live with blasphemy and idolatry that he would never countenance. I don’t see why 2k kvetchers miss how far they are from Calvin themselves.

    LikeLike

45. John, next time Jahweh tells me to take a ship to Ninevah and preach repentance, I’ll do it. In the meantime, those specific instances do not seem to be a warrant for what Paul tells ministers to do in the epistles. The Reformed hermeneutic is let clear passages interpret obscure. Paul is clear that Timothy has obligations to the church. He doesn’t say anything about magistrates.

    LikeLike

46. Russ, I’m surprised that a Calvinist would have any trouble defining otherworldliness. Here are some samples, and they all involve the distinction between the impermanence of this world and the permanence of the world to come.

    Paul writes: “For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.” (2 Cor. 4:17-18)

    Calvin comments on this passage: “Mark what it is, that will make all the miseries of this world easy to be endured, — if we carry forward our thoughts to the eternity of the heavenly kingdom. For a moment is long, if we look around us on this side and on that; but, when we have once raised our minds heavenward, a thousand years begin to appear to us to be like a moment. Farther, the Apostle’s words intimate, that we are imposed upon by the view of present things, because there is nothing there that is not temporal; and that, consequently, there is nothing for us to rest upon but confidence in a future life. Observe the expression, looking at the things which are unseen, or the eye of faith penetrates beyond all our natural senses, and faith is also on that account represented as a looking at things that are invisible. (Hebrews 11:1.)”

    The Westminster Confession puts this distinction between the temporal and the eternal very well in its chapter on Christian liberty. On the one hand, Christian liberty is entirely spiritual: “The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin; from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also, in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love and willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law. But, under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish church was subjected; and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.”

    On the other hand, Christian liberty has nothing to do with temporal powers: “And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.”

    Otherworldiness really is part of the original Calvinist project. Only neo-Cals need to have that proved to them. Citing Reformers on living in this world will not overcome this threshold. No 2ker says that we deny life in this world. What they say, along with Calvin, is that we estimate this life from the perspective of eternal life, and that is why Calvin wrote prayers, that the CRC included at the back of its hymnal, asking that “we not become too deeply attached to earthly and perishable things.” Earthly and perishable things are not wicked or evil. Nor are they ultimate, redeemed, or holy.

    LikeLike

47. Russ, btw, no 2ker ever said that 2k is Calvin straight up. I have not seen neo-Cals account very well for the disparities between neo- and paleo-Calvinism. I have yet to see any acknowledgement of Calvin’s otherworldly faith.

    2Xbtw, I don’t think you have any greater certainty about what the new heavens and new earth will look like than the fundies. If you do think you have certainty, you may find yourself, like the Israelites who had certain expectations for what the Messiah would do, very disappointed. Then again, I suspect Peter, with the hindsight of Pentecost and the Ascension, was pretty happy with how the kingdom turned out.

    LikeLike

48. Darryl: I’m just looking for clarity since, if you see it as one of the most significant differences, it deserves careful definition. What we’re really talking about is an otherageliness, right? A longing for the age to come, not (as many evangelicals, or pietists, or whatever you’d prefer) a preference for something “spiritual” (wrongly defined as the non-physical) over that which is physical (I think “otherworldly” carries those kind of connotations, even when not intended). I’m all for that, but I don’t think it’s inherently at odds with neocalvinist distinctives. It’s certainly found in Kuyper’s devotional writings, whatever one may find today in Grand Rapids. Why isn’t it emphasized more? I’d suggest: 1) because some neocalvinists are really just liberals or liberal-leaning, or 2) for some neocalvinism helped liberate them from a ontologically dualistic otherworldliness, but in a way that could be unbalanced. My own experience is in that second group, though I think I’ve attained some balance.

    In any case: Yes, Calvin calls Christians to meditate on the life of the future age. Now you’ve heard a neocalvinist (at least of sorts) acknowledge it.

    On your second comment, seems like you sometimes use 2k and paleocalvinism as if they’re synonymous, but here seem to use paleocalvinism for Calvin himself, distinguished from neocalvinism and 2k (which you, and as you say all 2kers acknowledge, isn’t Calvin straight up). Confusing, sometimes.

    I make no claim to have any certainty, or even much a foggy idea, of the details of the new heavens and new earth. But the Bible does speak to continuity (even if the continuity of a seed to a full-grown tree) which does in turn have at least some shaping effect on the kind of other”world”(aion)liness we would deem as proper to a Christian, since we look to the future hope of restoration and renewal.

    LikeLike

49. Darryl,

    That’s good enough for me. It looks as though Jason Stellman is going to discuss the Mathison critique next week on his blog site. If I am not mistaken I think Mathison is a postmil, so, he inherently is going to have trouble with a lot of the 2K assumptions to begin with. He is also going to search the biblical texts with a postmil perspective. However, I am not positive his is postmil. His critique may feed the 2K hysteria but it certainly has not changed any of my 2K convictions.

    LikeLike

50. Russ, thanks for the concession, sort of. My half-hearted thanks stems from the idea that one affirmation in comment #49 at an obscure blog hardly constitutes a neo-Calvinist recognition of otherworldliness. Here’s one more example, a prayer from Calvin, the kind that is littered through his lectures on the minor prophets:

    Grant, Almighty God, that as we are constrained continually to groan under the burden of our sins, and the captivity in which we are held justly exposes us to continual trembling and sorrow, — O grant, that the deliverance, already begun, may inspire us with the hope, so as to expect more from thee than what we can see with our eyes; and may we continually call on thee until thou completes what thou hast begun, and puttest to flight both Satan and our sins, so that being in true and full liberty devoted to thee, we may be partakers of that power which has already appeared in our head, until having at length passed through all our contests, we may reach that blessed rest, where we shall enjoy the fruit of our victory in Christ our Lord — Amen (Zech. 10:6)

    Again, I don’t think 2kers have any trouble conceding that 2010 Grand Rapids is different from 1560 Geneva. I’d be very surprised if any 2ker would argue that the follow Calvin in every aspect of social life. But I am hard pressed to see neo-Cals ever do justice to the sort of otherworldly piety that breathes from the pages of Calvin. (I admit that I find it difficult.)

    So since Jeff brought up the question about whether Calvin’s politics were a function of his theology, I think that question needs to be turned back on any and all transformers. How can you square Calvin’s otherworldliness with a project of establishing a Christian social order or taking every thought captive? To Calvin’s credit he never did engage in the rhetoric of redeeming society or taking every square inch captive (and if you look at his commentaries on those passages you see something very far from Kuyper et al). So if otherworldiness is basic to Calvinism and if neo-Cals eschew otherworldliness as fundamentalist, are neo-Cals really Calvinist?

    In other words, the question of discontinuity is much more pressing for neo- than for paleo-Cals.

    As for the Bible speaking to continuity between this world and the next, Peter, who is in the canon, also talks of this earth and order being burnt up to a crisp. I look at resurrection being a pretty drastic change from what we now experience. One more argument for discontinuity is our Lord’s own teaching on marriage. Marriage was basic to the created order. In heaven, marriage will no longer exist.

    Is there a neo-Cal. apocrypha that only those who know the secret handshake are allowed to own?

    LikeLike

51. Now here is a quote from Calvin that I came across today that is truly good news. It is relevant to all of us who worry that we are not the cultural warriors we should be or that our good works are not quite up to snuff:

    “But if, freed from this severe requirement of the law, or rather from the entire rigor of the law, they hear themselves called with fatherly gentleness by God, they will cheerfully and with great eagerness answer, and follow his leading. To sum up: Those bound by the yoke of the law are like servants assigned certain tasks for each day by their masters. These servants think they have accomplished nothing and dare not appear before their masters unless they have fulfilled the exact measure of their tasks. But sons, who are more generously and candidly treated by their fathers, do not hesitate to offer them incomplete and half-done and even defective works, trusting that their obedience and readiness of mind will be accepted by their fathers, even though they have not quite achieved what their fathers intended. Such children ought we to be, firmly trusting that our services will be approved by our most merciful Father, however small, rude, and imperfect these may be….And we need this assurance in no slight degree, for without it we attempt everything in vain.”
    (Book 3 Chapter 19.5)

    Because of justification, adds William Ames, the defilement of good works does not prevent their being accepted and rewarded by God.

    LikeLike

52. 2 Peter could be a slam dunk, except for manuscript issues that make it difficult to know what word was used in the original (hence the ESV’s use of “exposed”) and the apocalyptic language of Peter that lead him to state the earth had already been “destroyed” or “abolished” in the flood.

    —

    Fair enough on the half-hearted thanks; even half is being generous. So, I’ll get some books down from the shelf to give you some authoritative neocalvinist writings, so that you may rejoice and be glad.

    “The whole New Testament, which was written from the viewpoint of the ‘church under the cross,’ speaks the same language. Believers, not many of whom are wise, powerful, or of noble birth, should not expect anything on earth other than suffering and oppression. They are sojourners and foreigners; their citizenship is in the heavens; they do not look at the things that can be seen, but mind the things that are above. There they have no lasting city but are looking for the city that is to come. They are saved in hope and know that if they suffer with Chrisit they will also be glorified with him. Therefore, along with the entire groaning creation, they wait with eager longing for the future of Christ and the revelation of the glory of the children of God, a glory which the sufferings of the present time are not worth comparing. Nowhere in the New Testament is there a ray of hope that the church of Christ will again come to power and dominion on earth.”

    I think even you’ll admit, there is some good neocalvinism. (Bavinck Reformed Dogmantics IV p. 674).

    And another neocalvinist systematics text, on squaring Calvin and taking every thought captive (this is the final conclusion of the book):

    “How shall we then live? The New Testament addresses this question with eschatological insistence. Time is short… The watchword is semper paratus, which does not mean being always out looking for Christ’s return. But it does imply a state of readiness for this future, undergirded by a clear recollection of the past. A sense of fulfillment and expectancy go hand in hand… Readiness calls for no new decision, however, beyond the standing call of obedient response to the Christ of the gospel. Biblical eschatology is therefore no excuse of an otherworldly retreat from our God-given callings. It does not have ‘negative, but a positive significance in our life in the present time.’ (Ridderbos) The expectation of the future reinforces our present mandate, for the norms of God’s Word do not change They are the same from creation to consumation. Between God’s past and his future, our present life has a provisional character. But it brings with it no ‘interim ethics’ which departs from the cultural mandate. We are indeed called to ‘set [our] minds on things that are above,” remembering, however, that this command is not structural in its thrust, telling us ‘where’ to live our lives, but directional, telling us ‘how/in whose Name’ to do so. The best way to seek the things above is to participate in God’s mission in his world… ‘Nothing in the gospel forbids [Christians] to be faithful to life, to the earth, to culture.’ Rather, the gospel urges us to ‘accept life for the time gives us to enjoy it’ (Ridderbos)–as active peacemakers, earthkeepers, advocates of justice, and agents of neighborly love.” (Spykman, Reformational Theology, 529-530)

    Sure, Spykman specifically condemns otherworldliness, but of the ontologically dualistic sort, not the two-age sort, which, drawing from Ridderbos, he affirms. It’s the otherworldliness of physical separation from the world for the sake of false holiness or opposition of spirit to matter that neocalvinism rejects, not the expectant longing for the fulfillment of God’s kingdom, which our faithful cultural endeavors now only foreshadow dimly. I think that’s in line with the “otherworldliness” (if we must call it that) we find in Calvin, with the caveats that the two-age perspective is more clearly focused later in Vos and Ridderbos, and that occasionally Calvin does use platonic-sounding language such as the “prison house” of the body.

    So now your joy may be full, Darryl, even unto overflowing.

    LikeLike

53. Russ, thanks for a quote from Bavinck that I may use for otherworldly Thursday. How you fit Spykman and Bavinck in the same instruction to Christians is a puzzle. I guess you guys will figure it out at Providence.

    But I think your own comments could use some further attention. It is a straw man to simply put Christian otherworldiness into the Platonic bin and let it rest there. And I am not sure what you mean about separating from the world for the sake of false holiness. Even Kuyper and the CRC in its Kuyperian moment rejected cards, theater, and dance as worldiness.

    Meanwhile, the apostle Paul does see a real conflict between the spirit and the flesh, and also between believers and the world, the devil, and the flesh.

    The point then is that the language of taking captive or establishing dominion over every square inch could actually start in the neo- and paleo-Cal’s heart and that would be enough for a lifetime.

    But Spykman’s view of the cultural mandate going from creation to consummation is seriously contested. And you won’t find support for that construction in Calvin or Moses.

    LikeLike

54. Since Bavinck would have held to the same view of the cultural mandate as Spykman, I don’t think Bavinck would have been puzzled (nor am I). But a discussion on the cultural mandate would be a good one to have at some point in the future.

    Again, I’m not condemning what you call “Christian otherworldliness” in its entirety; I’m distinguishing that which is in line with the two-age structure of redemptive history and that which tends toward ontological dualism. The second is what I meant by false holiness – the kind of pietism, fundamentalism, and holiness movements that locate worldliness as “out there” somewhere, that avoiding certain places, people, professions, or activities, they can avoid all sin, not realizing the problem of sin in their own hearts. I think the language of structure and direction immensely helpful in making these biblical distinctions.

    “Prison-house” is, if I remember correctly, a distinctively platonic term, drawn from the Allegory of the Cave, so it’s hardly a straw man to think that Calvin was at least drawing on some platonic strain of humanism.

    LikeLike

55. Russ, but how do neo-Cal’s get around dualism of their own. If they take antithesis seriously, then they have a Christian world and a secular or anti-Christian world, hence the need for Christian schools where Shakespeare is taught from a Christian world and life view. Now some neo-Cals may acknowledge the insights of non-believers in teaching Shakespeare, but why then send your kids to Christian schools if the pagans are as smart about the three R’s as non-Christians.

    So it seems to me, neo-Cals simply move the goal posts of dualism in ways that resemble fundamentalism remarkably.

    The other alternative is to emphasize common grace and get the GC video on the churches and the arts. You may not like that stuff, but I’m not sure you can escape the charge that neo-Cals are in some way response for this “robust” view of culture to former fundies. What used to be worldly is now one big quiet-time.

    I don’t know why we can’t let the church be the church and let Christians engage their vocations as we all await Christ’s return.

    LikeLike

56. The neocalvinist critique of dualism isn’t an opposition to anything that could be divided into two categories. The critique of dualism rejects dividing creation into two realms, whether that would mean: 1) making some callings higher than others (being a missionary as more “spiritual” than the mere businessman); 2) declaring some aspect of culture as utterly evil (Christians should avoid all forms of dance, or film, non-Christian literature, etc.); or 3) more extreme views identifying what Paul called “the flesh” or John called “the world” as physical creation, and the “spiritual” as some kind of non-physical, non-bodily existence. This is why I think Wolters’s categories of structure and direction are helpful. Dividing the structures of creation (including life spheres) into good/evil, sacred/worldly, is what neocalvinists mean by “dualism.” All of creation was created good; all of creation is fallen. The imago dei persists in all humanity, though obscured by the fall. The antithesis is not about structure, but about direction, whether the individual (and the social spheres that individual participates in – whether family, business, church, state) is directed toward God and his glory, or toward sin and idolatry. Only the church has the ministry of redemption, but the redeemed seek to glorify God in all aspects of life.

    Non-christians, as created beings in the image of God, have valid and truthful insights into creation and culture. As Calvin says, it would be ingratitude to the Spirit not to recognize the truth that comes from non-Christian sources. But it would be foolish not to test those sources against the standard of Christ and the Scriptures. Christian children need both the insights that come through common grace and general revelation as well as the truth and discernment that comes through special revelation. To emphasize either the antithesis or common grace to the exclusion of the other would likely push either toward fundamentalism or liberalism, and there are plenty of examples of neocalvinism imbalanced to the left or to the right.

    I’m all for letting the church be the church, and letting Christians engage in their vocations. I just don’t understand why it’s so objectionable that (for example) Christian artists might think about their vocation in conversation with other Christian artists about how they can be faithful to Christ in their art (even if they never produce art with biblical or evangelistic themes).

    LikeLike

57. Russ,

    It may be that where neocals talk of dualism 2kers talk of triadalism. Horton is good for it in “God of Promise.” After briefly sketching out the narrative of Cain in his “stay of execution that allows Cain to build a city,” Horton explains that:

    …we begin the story with one creation, one covenant, one people, one mandate, one city. Then after the fall, there is a covenant of creation (with its cultural mandate still in effect for all people, with the law of that covenant universally inscribed on the conscience) and a covenant of grace (with its gospel publicly announced to transgressors), a City of Man (secular but even in its rejection of God, upheld by God’s gracious hand for the time being) and a City of God (holy but even in its acceptance by God, sharing in the common curse of a fallen world). Just as the failure to distinguish law covenant from promise covenant leads to manifold confusions in our understanding of salvation, tremendous problems arise when we fail to distinguish adequately between God’s general care for the secular order and his special concern for the redemption of his people.

    Religious fundamentalism tends to see the world simply divided up into believers and unbelievers. The former are blessed, loved by God, holy, and doers of the right, while the latter are cursed, hated by God, unholy, and doers of evil. Sometimes this is taken to quite an extreme: believers are good people, and their moral, political, and doctrinal causes are always right, always justified, and can never be questioned. Unless the culture is controlled by their agenda, it is simply godless and unworthy of the believers’ support. This perspective ignores the fact that according to Scripture, all of us—believers and unbelievers alike—are simultaneously under a common curse and common grace.

    Religious liberalism tends to see the world simply as one blessed community. Ignoring biblical distinctions between those inside and those outside of the covenant community, this approach cannot take the common curse seriously because it cannot take sin seriously…everything is holy.

    …[But] the human race is not divided at the present time between those who are blessed and those who are cursed. That time is coming, of course, but in this present age, believers and unbelievers alike share in the pains of childbirth, the burdens of labor, the temporal effects of their own sins, and the eventual surrender of their decaying bodies to death…there is in this present age a category for that which is neither holy nor unholy but simply common.

    So, what I don’t understand is what’s so hard to understand about the value of artists who are Christian meeting with other artists who aren’t (or are) in that common sphere in order to pursue art. If Christians of whatever worldly vocation want to meet with other Christians over how to be faithful to Christ that seems to be something best done every Lord’s Day.

    LikeLike

58. I find Horton’s book to be helpful – we assign it in our Reformed Doctrine class at Providence Christian College (required by all students).

    I didn’t intend to exclude Christian artists working and exploring their vocation with non-Christian artists; I take that as a given, as is meeting for congregational worship with other Christians. But the vocation of a politician is not identical to the life of a farmer or an artist or an elementary school teacher. These many be “common” vocations, but to say something is “common” does not invalidate attempts to think about the subject as a Christian, to understand what the creator’s intent was in making this vocation possible, what specific effects of the fall may be most problematic for those pursuing that vocation, and how Christ, the second Adam, in and through whom all things were made, renews our thought about our vocations.

    LikeLike

59. Russ, here is where I demur. There are holy callings and there are common ones, and I’ve long thought that the CRC devalued church offices by elevating every legitimate activity to a religious calling. Pastors are set apart; plumbers aren’t.

    Also, I don’t know how you test baseball or knitting against the standard of Scriptures. On some matters the Bible is silent.

    So neo-Cals are no help against every member ministry (read: kingdom work) or against biblicism.

    Sorry for the snark, but the resemblances to fundamentalism are tallying up.

    LikeLike

60. Russ, I understand that certain vocations are not identical to others. But what I don’t understand is the idea of contemplating the Creator’s intent in making whatever vocation possible. That seems highly speculative, as Dt. 29:29. But instead of cracking divine codes, isn’t it better to contemplate what is revealed, which is to say how to do the task well? Maybe that’s not attractive enough, or maybe it runs the risk of saying that unbelievers know just as much about that question if not more, which for whatever reasons turn believers off and reaching for Dooyeweerd. But that’s just reality. Sorry, but the language of “how Christ, the second Adam, in and through whom all things were made, renews our thought about our vocations” not only sounds like cleaned up fundie but just plain like religious fantasizing.

    LikeLike

61. No surprise that you disagree here. I should note that I feel no obligation to defend every aspect of neocalvinist theory or practice. At a former institution, we used a book for first-year students that suggested the church should ordain everyone – teachers, plumbers, and pastors. The only thing more ridiculous than this was that most on the faculty didn’t get how ridiculous it was. I’m fine with the division of holy and common callings, so long as “common” doesn’t mean “neutral” (which 2k folk tell me they don’t mean). “Common” does not negate the possibility of distinctive Christian (and a variety of non-Christian) perspectives. I know Baus has made the case again and again that Christian perspective is more apparent at the theoretical level and less apparent at the practical level, so I won’t delve into that much. There’s no biblical guide for using a microscope, but it does make a difference in understanding human behavior and ethics whether we are created and fallen beings (abnormalists, in Kuyper’s terminology) or if we have evolved to our current “normal” state (as in the famous example of whether rape is merely an evolutionary adaptation).

    I’m not sure how you are able to be so precise in your diagnosis of the CRC that neocalvinism is the cause of devaluing church offices rather than the CRC’s eager embrace of evangelicalism. Well, I guess if there’s no such thing as evangelicalism, neocalvinism is left holding the bag. But I strongly suspect C. Peter Wagner and Bill Hybels have had far more influence in the CRC in the past few decades than Kuyper.

    LikeLike

62. Zrim: Sounds to me more like using special revelation to rightly understand general revelation, which is perfectly appropriate unless you’ve dug a ditch between special and general revelation so deep that your spiritual life on Sunday has no bearing on your life Monday through Saturday.

    Are you really sure you want to assert that Christ has no effect on how we pursue our vocations? In speaking to the Roman context, was Paul engaged in “just plain like religious fantasizing” in Ephesians 6?

    And if you think a distinctive characteristic of fundamentalism was seeking out distinctively Christian perspectives on secular vocations, I’m not sure what to say, except perhaps to make some bibliographic suggestions on the history and theology of fundamentalism.

    LikeLike

63. Russ, you have once again distinguished yourself as a historian (read: reasonable). Glad to hear you’re opposed to every member ministry. But I don’t quite understand the hyperventilation over “neutral.” It’s almost code for communist. I am not defending neutral. But if all things are lawful, according to scripture, why can’t neutral be lawful, especially parts of the creation that do not have souls — like math, plumbing, and language?

    I don’t disagree on evangelicalism’s effects on the CRC. But don’t you think it ironic that neo-Calvinism was no immunity against it, but in fact provided a high-flown theory for Hybels and Wagner?

    LikeLike

64. Russ, let me help Zrim out (not that he needs it), but fundamentalism did have a distinctly Christian perspective on all secular vocations — that perspective was “worldly.” Now along come neo-Cals who tell us that fundies were wrong, but there is a Christian perspective on those vocations — “redeemed.” Neo-Cal’s have moved the line between black and white, but neither neo-Cals nor fundies have any room for gray (read: common, good, proximate).

    LikeLike

65. Russ, having emerged out of funda-evangelicalism and into neo-Cal environs, whatever other differences there are what I find to be the common denominating principle is that faith has a direct and obvious bearing on creational tasks and worldly cares. I hear neo-Kuyperians preach in evening services how the church missed the boat by not creating a Christian Hollywood, something I heard all the time in my mega churches. If that’s not enough, consider education: you both have your own schools because of the aforementioned principle. The ironic upshot for me has always been that the application of this principle actually creates the redemptive bubble the neo’s disdain amongst the fundies. Sure, the fundies have a lot of world-flight Gnosticism in the mix, but it seems to me that the principle is the lynchpin for making ghetto.

    So, yes, Christ does have effect on how we pursue our vocations, just not the one either fundamentalism or neo-Calvinism seem to think: creation is very good as-is and needs no redemptive contemplation, full stop.

    LikeLike

66. I wasn’t aware I was hyperventilating, but the concern about “neutral” is that it would seem to fit into a larger theological context in which creation and culture are untouched by the effects of fall. Even those parts of creation that do not have souls have been subjected to futility by those who do.

    In my own experience amongst the fundamentalists (of a sort, though I had plenty of friends in all the varieties southern California has to offer), common professions weren’t seen as “worldly” in the sense of being sinful. No one looked down on the used car salesman or realtor. Some professions were of course utterly evil – prostitute, liquor store owner, casino dealer. But honest professions, while inferior to the holy professions of full-time Christian service, were necessary, since someone had to support the missionaries. But regular jobs were of no ultimate value, since all things earthly and cultural were going to be burned to a crisp. Going to college was ok, but only those seeking training to be a minister or a minister’s wife went to Bible colleges. Everyone else went to the state university, since it was best to get job training (i.e. a Bachelor of Arts degree) at the cheapest place possible, and outside of Bible classes, education was pretty much neutral. K-12 Christian schools were important, of course, but for moral protection and evangelism. That doesn’t sound much like neocalvinism to me.

    LikeLike

67. Russ, that all sounds more or less like my fundamentalists as well (I reluctantly converted but happily married into mine). You’re quite right that Cornerstone University is different from Calvin College in certain ways: the former deems the latter “dark” because it doesn’t have the same institutional legalisms over substance use and worldly amusement. That, plus frontier fundamentalism simply thinks that world-class education must mean some sort of worldly (as in sinful) compromise.

    But what they share is the principle of gospel relevance to worldly care, even if the applications differ. From my experience, the neocals talk about education the way the fundamentalists talk about substance use and worldly amusement. It’s quite uncanny, really. Not having come from either by my own upbringing, I do muse in how the Reformed by-and-large think they circumvent legalism by making it only and ever something about booze, tobacco and film, all the while missing they make up for it in spades with education. Maybe you’re familiar with the PRC finally formalizing educational legalism?

    But the advantage of the older 2k outlook is that we can send our kids anywhere: Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, secular, neocal, etc. And that’s because the dirty little secret about education (like law, medicine and art) is that it has nothing to do with religion. That doesn’t mean neutral, it just means that everybody has equal access to doing creation, even if some totally fumble redemption.

    LikeLike

68. More support for discontinuity:

    1. our righteousness is as filthy rags.
    2. the first shall be last

    LikeLike

69. Russ, all neo-Cals sound the same to me, hence the remark about heavy breathing.

    To add to Zrim’s point, the fundamentalist view of worldly vocations is not the same, and that’s why I say neo-Cal’s move the bar. But in order to make worldly vocations valuable, neo-Cals have to appeal to redemption rather than creation. And as your own remark suggests, an activity only has value if it contributes to the ultimate goal of salvation, hence your use of the phrase “ultimate value.” 2kers want to say that worldly vocations are good, not best, that the created order is proximate, not ultimate, that our redeemed state here is saved, not blessed. What I hear in your responses, especially regarding eschatology, is more already than not yet.

    And I don’t think you need to say that everything here will be burned to a crisp — what happens to everything here is a mystery — to think that discontinuity is more realistic than continuity. Again, just look at marriage.

    LikeLike

70. Too late to jump in here, but I want to say a word in defense of Plato (coming from the heart of neo-Calvinism, no less, Calvin College, where my office is yards from Jamie’s!)

    Russ, perhaps the straw-man to which Darryl alludes is to argue along these lines (which one hears more often from fundamentalists than from frisky, bucking Neo-Calves):

    1. a given other-worldly proposition regarding body-soul/this life and the next resembles some aspect of Plato’s thought, like the cave allegory you mention

    2. we all know that true biblical teaching on body-soul/this life and the next has nothing in common with anything in Plato; indeed, there is a restraining order somewhere in “Hebrew thought” and nepheshism that forbids Plato from coming within 500 yards of the Bible

    3. therefore, the other-worldy proposition under consideration cannot be biblical in any true sense and thus not acceptable to Christians

    This is the straw-man as I know him. How I could wish that more Neo-Calves read Plato well, like Calvin himself did, before reading Calvin.

    And Merry Hodgemas, Russ, to you and Erin and the children.

    LikeLike

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.