One of the interlocutors at this site suggested that neo-Calvinism and biblical theology of an amillennial variety go together well, and that no reasons existed for suggesting tension between someone like Geerhardus Vos and Abraham Kuyper. He linked to an essay that Richard B. Gaffin wrote on theonomy and claimed that Gaffin, a marked proponent of biblical theology in the Vosian tradition, was on board with neo-Calvinism. He even supplied a quotation from Gaffin that showed his neo-Calvinist bona fides:
It will not do simply to dismiss this chapter as the ramblings of someone who has be-
trayed his Reformed heritage—with its ennobling vision of life itself as religion and the whole of life to the glory of God—for an anemic, escapist Christianity of cultural surrender. Without question, the Great Commission continues fully in force, with its full cultural breadth, until Jesus returns; “teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you†is the mandate of the exalted Last Adam to the people of his new creation. We can not measure the limit of that “everything†and its implications; of it we can only confess with the Psalmist: “To all perfection I see a limit; but your commands are boundless†(119:96). That mandate, then, is bound to have a robust, leavening impact—one that will redirect every area of life and will transform not only individuals but, through them corporately (as the church), their cultures; it already has done so and will continue to do so, until Jesus comes.
Not to pick nits but when this comment referred to this paragraph as the concluding one in Gaffin’s essay I decided to take a look. In point of fact, Gaffin concludes that essay on a decidedly different note, one that fits the allegedly wimpy profile of 2k as opposed to those world-beaters, the neo-Calvinists. Here is what Gaffin wrote in his conclusion:
The comprehensive outlook found in the Book of Hebrews provides a fitting close to
these remarks. Two realities dominate the writer’s marvelous exposition of God’s eschatological, “last days†speech in his Son (1:2). The one reality is Jesus, the high priest in heaven (e.g., 4:14; 8:1). Fulfilling Psalm 110, the exalted Christ is “priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek†(e.g., 5:6; 6:10; 7:17); the New Testament contains no more impressive presentation of the realized eschatological dimension of his person and work than this.But for whom is the exalted Christ high priest? Who is served by his sanctuary service (8:2) of eschatological intercession (7:25)? The answer to that question is the other reality in view—the church as a pilgrim congregation, a people in the wilderness. Utilizing a broad covenant-historical analogy, the writer compares the church between Christ’s exaltation and return to Israel in the desert (see esp. 3:7-4:11): just as the wilderness generation delivered from Egyptian bondage (picturing realized eschatology) had not yet entered Canaan (a picture of still future eschatology), so the New Testament church, presently enjoying a real experience of the salvation promised in the gospel, has not yet entered into the possession of that salvation in its final and unthreatened form (“God’s restâ€).
Two basic perspectives emerge with these two realities. On the one hand, the writer’s realized eschatology leaves no room for a premil position: Once Jesus “has gone through the heavens†(4:14) and “has sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven†(8:1), his return for a provisional earthly rule, prior to the eternal heavenly order, would be retrograde for the writer, a step backward eschatologically. Christ’s return will be the return of the heavenly high priest, not the appearance of Christ temporarily exchanging heavenly ministry for earthly duties. That return will mean the appearance on earth of the heavenly order/sanctuary where Christ is “a high priest forever†(6:20), the manifestation on earth, without delay at his return, of the “heavenly Jerusalem†(12:22), the “lasting city†(13:14), the eternal “restâ€-order (4:11).
But the writer is no less indisposed toward a postmil outlook: Until Christ returns the church remains a wilderness congregation; like the Patriarchs in the land of promise, believers are “aliens and strangers on earth†(11:13). That tension is an essential dimension of their identity — aliens in the creation that is theirs by right and whose eschatological restoration has already been secured for them by their high priest-king.
There is no “golden†age coming that is going to replace or even ameliorate these desert conditions of testing and suffering. No success of the gospel, however great, will bring the church into a position of earthly prosperity and dominion such that the wilderness with its persecutions and temptations will be eliminated or even marginalized. That would have to be the outcome if prosperity—understood, for instance, in the terms of Isaiah 65:17ff.—is to be at all meaningful. Such prosperity and blessing for the church are reserved until Christ returns.
The writer of Hebrews operates with a simple enough eschatological profile: the bodily absence of Christ means the church’s wilderness existence, his bodily presence, its entrance into God’s final rest. What he must confront in his readers is a perennial problem for the church, a primal temptation bound up with its wilderness existence: the veiledness, for the present, of messianic glory and the believer’s eschatological triumph; “at present we do not yet see everything subject to him†(Heb. 2:8), with the longing as well as the promise that “at present†holds for the church. All of us, then, are involved in a continuing struggle—against our deeply rooted eschatological impatience to tear away that veil and our undue haste to be out of the wilderness and see the realization of what, just because of that haste and impatience, will inevitably prove to be dreams and aspirations that are ill-considered and all too “fleshly.â€
“For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come†(Heb. 13:14).
The point of this exercise is not to expose the error of an Old Life reader. It is to raise a question, though, about the way that 2kers and neo-Calvinists read. It strikes me that neo-Cal’s generally favor readings from texts that highlight a progressive and triumphant understanding of Reformed Protestantism’s effects upon the world. This extends to which passages of Scripture to highlight in exploring a believer’s identity as well as how to read the development of history and culture.
Abraham Kuyper established the model for this sort of reading when in his infamous Lectures on Calvinism he uttered inspirational prose such as the following:
The avoidance of the world has never been the Calvinistic mark, but the shibboleth of the Anabaptist. The specific, anabaptistical dogma of “avoidance†proves this. According to this dogma, the Anabaptists, announcing themselves as “saints,†were severed from the world They stood in opposition to it. They refused to take the oath; they abhorred all military service; they condemned the holding of public offices. Here already, they shaped a new world, in the midst of this world of sin, which however had nothing to do with this our present existence. They rejected all obligation and responsibility towards the old world, and they avoided it systematically, for fear of contamination, and contagion. But this is just what the Calvinist always disputed and denied. It is not true that there are two worlds, a bad one and a good, which are fitted into each other. It is one and the same person whom God created perfect and who afterwards fell, and became a sinner– and it is this same “ego†of the old sinner who is born again, and who enters into eternal life. So, also, it is one and the same world which once exhibited all the glory of Paradise, which was afterwards smitten with the curse, and which, since the Fall, is upheld by common grace; which has now been redeemed and saved by Christ, in its center, and which shall pass through the horror of the judgment into the state of glory. For this very reason the Calvinist cannot shut himself up in his church and abandon the world to its fate. He feels, rather, his high calling to push the development of this world to an even higher stage, and to do this in constant accordance with God’s ordinance, for the sake of God, upholding, in the midst of so much painful corruption, everything that is honorable, lovely, and of good report among men Therefore it is that we see in History (if I may be permitted to speak of my own ancestors) that scarcely had Calvinism been firmly established in the Netherlands for a quarter of a century when there was a rustling of life in all directions, and an indomitable energy was fermenting in every department of human activity, and their commerce and trade, their handicrafts and industry, their agriculture and horticulture, their art and science, flourished with a brilliancy previously unknown. and imparted a new impulse for an entirely new development of life, to the whole of Western Europe. (from Lecture 2)
2k proponents, in contrast, tend to take a more restrained even pessimistic view of Christian existence in this world. Believers have enough trouble overcoming sin in their own lives that taking on the entire world in a project of domination seems foolhardy and not the best use of spiritual resources.
This leaves 2k in a decided disadvantage with the Reformed rank-and-file. Neo-Cals can win people to their side because they are long on inspiration even if short on practical steps toward square-inch subjection. They can rally the faithful for all sorts of “yes, we can projects,†from taking back city hall to reclaiming the proper interpretation of the American or Dutch republics’ foundings. All 2kers can do is tell the faithful to cope; look to the Lord, count your blessings (name them square-inch by square-inch?), receive the means of grace, pray, and be faithful in your callings. This is not a project for changing the world. Most people – Reformed Protestants included – want to know “Can’t we do more!?!â€
But if neo-Cals are better at inspiration, they are not so good at close reading. Not only do we fail to see in the New Testament exhortation for Christians to change the world, but we also read terms that 2kers are prone to use and neo-Cals to avoid. Peter and Paul refer to believers as strangers, aliens, and pilgrims. These are not the words that come to mind with neo-Calvinism. The mascot of neo-Cals is the crusader (retired recently by Wheaton College for obvious culturally insensitive reasons; but when have neo-Cals been sensitive to culture let alone people?)
But 2kers can take hope from the original Calvinist, John Calvin. He is hard to turn into a cultural transformer despite the efforts of Kuyper and H. Richard Niebuhr (has any neo-Cal ever asked why Kuyper’s reading of Calvinism is so similar to a liberal Protestant’s?). When you read Calvin you see the biblical themes of exile and pilgrimage. And when he comments on those favorite texts of cultural dominators, he is very short on the inspiration that typifies neo-Calvinism. Here are a couple of illustrations.
Calvin on Romans 8: 37 (“No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.â€)
We do more than conquer, etc.; that is, we always struggle and emerge. I have retained the word used by Paul, though not commonly used by the Latins. It indeed sometimes happens that the faithful seem to succumb and to lie forlorn; and thus the Lord not only tries, but also humbles them. This issue is however given to them, — that they obtain the victory.
That they might at the same time remember whence this invincible power proceeds, he again repeats what he had said before: for he not only teaches us that God, because he loves us, supports us by his hand; but he also confirms the same truth by mentioning the love of ChristAnd this one sentence sufficiently proves, that the Apostle speaks not here of the fervency of that love which we have towards God, but of the paternal kindness of God and of Christ towards us, the assurance of which, being thoroughly fixed in our hearts, will always draw us from the gates of hell into the light of life, and will sufficiently avail for our support.
Calvin on 2 Cor. 10:5 (“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.â€)
And bring into captivity I am of opinion, that, having previously spoken more particularly of the conflict of spiritual armor, along with the hinderances that rise up in opposition to the gospel of Christ, he now, on the other hand, speaks of the ordinary preparation, by which men must be brought into subjection to him. For so long as we rest in our own judgment, and are wise in our own estimation, we are far from having made any approach to the doctrine of Christ. Hence we must set out with this, that he who is wise must become a fool, (1 Corinthians 3:18), that is, we must give up our own understanding, and renounce the wisdom of the flesh, and thus we must present our minds to Christ empty that he may fill them. Now the form of expression must be observed, when he says, that he brings every thought into captivity, for it is as though he had said, that the liberty of the human mind must be restrained and bridled, that it may not be wise, apart from the doctrine of Christ; and farther, that its audacity cannot be restrained by any other means, than by its being carried away, as it were, captive. Now it is by the guidance of the Spirit, that it is brought to allow itself to be placed under control, and remain in a voluntary captivity.
So the lesson for 2kers is the same lesson for all Christians: suffer, submit, and suck it up. But is contrary to such sucking to wish neo-Cals were better students of the Bible’s and Calvin’s assigned readings?)
Old Life 
That certainly does seem to line up with how I have experienced living the Christian life in this world where my flesh, the world and the devil seem to be holding the victory even though I know Christ has defeated them all. I think this squares with Luther’s idea of Anfechtungen. David Scaer, the Lutheran professor at Concordia College in Ft. Wayne, gave a teaching on this at Issues, etc. which I found very helpful. There also was a theological article on Anfechtung which could be linked at the site. Well worth taking the time to read in my opinion.
In the article Scaer mention that Luther could not come out from under the Anfechtungen that it was he who broke up the universal and Catholic Church into warring factions. This caused severe struggle and existential angst in Luther’s soul. It made him doubt whether his soul was really saved and his only refuge was turning to Christ in faith when everything around him looked bleak and defeated. It was only in Christ (in Word and Sacrament) where he could find peace.
LikeLike
It might be more accurate to say Suffer, Submit and turn to Christ rather than “Suck it up.” Our souls will only find comfort and consolation in Christ.
LikeLike
Darryl,
1. “A spoon full of Postmillennialism to help the Calvinism go down.†–Me (in my dorm room tonight).
2. “but when have neo-Cals been sensitive to culture let alone people?â€
…Keller seems pretty “sensitive.â€
3. The same inspiration (yet inability to practice close reading) seem present in the Federal Visionaries. I think in both cases it comes from excessive theologizing independent from scripture.
John,
“Suffer, Submit and turn to Christ rather than ‘Suck it up.’â€
…that blows the alliteration.
LikeLike
Joseph- Are you being tongue-in-cheek or serious? If serious then I think you would have to ask the author if he was trying to alliterate on purpose.
Suck it up makes it seem like we are doing something meritorious. But so does submit. Christ already went through any suffering we may have to go through and the Holy Spirit provides the perseverance to enable us. Justification, sanctification and glorification are all part of the same package.
LikeLike
John,
But the means by which that package is delivered involves admonishment by the Apostles to be holy, to obey, to walk in the light, etc. Certainly, we can speak this way to, meanwhile understanding that the Lord is delivering these things to us. Also, we should not deny that sanctification is a synergistic work.
LikeLike
John, I was being serious, though not entirely so.
LikeLike
Joseph says: “we should not deny that sanctification is a synergistic work.”
I would beg to differ with you here. The following quote is taken from Harold Senkbeil’s essay in Modern Reformations new book Justified. The name of the essay is called “Holiness, God’s Work or Ours?”: “Current evangelical literature- with its myriad of principles, warm folksy illustrations, and down-to-earth advice- presents the power for the new life as a combination of man’s work and God’s work: Sure, God saves me by grace, but then he expects me to save myself with his help! With his Spirit he gives me the power I need to get started, but then it’s up to me. By following his principles and continuing in close fellowship with him and my fellow believers, I will be inspired to produce the kind of life that is pleasing to him. Spectacular power is available; all I have to do is reach out and grab it!”
“Thus we see that self-assertion raises its ugly head. Pride is deeply ingrained in the human nature. No one likes to be told he can’t do something; in fact, each of us enjoys taking credit for his or hers accomplishments. So also when it comes to the Christian faith. There is something deep within us that rebels when Scripture reminds us that there is nothing we can do to save ourselves: ‘For it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith- and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast’ (Eph. 2:8-9).”
“Similarly, we do not like to hear that God himself is the driving power in our life of sanctification: ‘For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do’ (Eph. 2:10). True, Scripture does speak of the activity of the Christian in performing works of love: ‘Continue to work our your salvation with fear and trembling.’ At the same time, however, we are reminded that the power for the sanctified life is not our own: ‘For it is God who works in you to will and to do and to act according to his good purpose’ (Phil. 2:12-13).”
“Justification (receiving God’s righteousness) and sanctification (sharing in God’s holiness) are to be clearly separated theologically, but not essentially. Like the putting of the proverbial cart before the horse, putting sanctification before justification is an affront to God’s grace and a stumbling block to faith. Holding to justification without sanctification leads nowhere, for ‘faith without works is dead’ (James 2:26). No one setting out on a journey in a horse-drawn cart hitches the cart in front of the horse, nor does he shoot the horse. Together they make a unit. Yet clearly the horse has to come first and provide the power if there is to be any forward movement! As one Lutheran theologian observes: ‘Sanctification describes the same reality as does justification but describes the justified Christians relationship to the world and society. Justification and sanctification are not two separate realities, but the same reality viewed from different perspectives of God and man. From the perspective of God the reality of the Christian is totally passive and non-contributory as it receives from Christ only. From the perspective of the world, the same reality never ceases in its activity and tirelessly performs all good works.”
“Thus when speaking about the power for the sanctified life, we dare never stop speaking about Christ. St. Paul put it this way: ‘For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified’ (1Cor. 2:2). The person and work of the crucified Lord is the sum total of our message. He is all in all: ‘our righteousness, our sanctification, our redemption (1Cor. 1:30). No wonder, then, that Luther could write, ‘Having been justified by grace, we then do good works, yes, Christ himself does all in us.”
How do you like them apples?
LikeLike
Joseph says: “John, I was being serious, though not entirely so.” Is there a word for being serious and tongue-in-cheek at the same time and in the same relationship? Perhaps you were being oxymoronic?
LikeLike
John,
Regarding the title DGH chose, I was not entirely serious because I don’t think it matters that much, but it is plain he was going for an alliteration. I don’t think you need to ask him in order to figure that out.
Regarding synergism in sanctification, I would not have normally said that except that I heard R.C. Sproul say the same thing on a Renewing Your Mind podcast recently. None of the scriptures you sited are in conflict with this. Is this an in-house debate among the Reformed? Perhaps I misunderstood Sproul? He certainly seems to have used the word “synergistic” in a favorable way in connection with obedience. I’m open to change on this, but if Sproul is speaking this way (while other Reformed are not), I would venture that the issue is not clear cut.
Blessings for you and your apples~
LikeLike
Joseph,
You are probably right about the alliteration.
I would say that synergism as a part of sanctification is a controversial issue. I would have to turn to the confessional statements of the Reformed and Lutheran to determine if there were significant differences in their understanding of sanctification. The quote I gave is from a Lutheran. I’m not sure of Sproul’s position on the matter but I know he adheres to the Westminster confession of faith.
I have heard some Reformed folk accuse us Lutheran’s of being synergists but I never really got whether they were referring to justification or sanctification. Senkbeil’s quote would certainly refute the synergistic accusation. I am not sure he was basing his quote on the Lutheran confessions. He did not appeal to them in the quote I gave.
LikeLike
“some Reformed folk accuse us Lutheran’s of being synergists ”
I would doubt that claim could have any sticking power. Are you sure you don’t mean syncretists? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism#Syncretistic_Controversy
LikeLike
Lawrence D.,
No, it was not syncretism. It was a passage in one of Cornelius Van Til’s books that this guy was drawing from and it was definitely synergism. I cannot remember the exact argument and context he was basing the accusation on. I think it had more of a philosophical basis then theological.
LikeLike
Jospeh, if Tim Keller wants to transform NYC that seems to suggest the premise that there is something essentially wrong with NYC—who wants to transform what is fundamentally good? But what’s essentially wrong with NYC? How sensitive to a place is it to suggest that there is something fundamentally wrong with it? That seems pretty condescending. When Keller says he wants to transform NYC I want to say, “What? I-heart-NYC, I wouldn’t change a thing.â€
LikeLike
“If Tim Keller wants to transform NYC that seems to suggest the premise that there is something essentially wrong with NYC—who wants to transform what is fundamentally good? But what’s essentially wrong with NYC?”
Examining this in isolation – what exactly is wrong with saying that there is something essentially wrong with place X?
LikeLike
Maybe a brother can help me out here, as I find this post and others at OL on neo Calvinism to be confusing. It kind of relates to Chris E’s comment above as well.
I am very slowing starting to work my way through Kuyper’s lectures on Calvinism (after reading about him in Alan Carlson’s Third Ways book).
I do not see a conflict between 2K theology and the notion of “sphere sovereignty” advocated by the neo Calvinists. Seems like Machen was 2K, but he also did not hesitate to campaign against stupid laws on the other six days of the week. This seems essentially consistent with what Kuyper was trying to do in his political calling.
What am I missing?
LikeLike
Chris, the problem as I see it is that there is nothing essentially wrong with place X, because creation is essentially very good. Following what I understand as a confesionally Protestant view of creation, I see a difference between creation’s essence and it’s condition. It’s essence is still very good so needs no redeeming, while its condition is sinful and does. Not only that, but the subject of God’s redemptive project in the inter-advental age isn’t the non-imago Dei creation (culture) but the imago-Dei creation (people). And not only that, the non-imago Dei creation will be restored when the sons of God are revealed by God’s hand alone, which means when his being-redeemed people think they are working what is his alone to work before the due time, well, they think too highly of themselves to say the least.
LikeLike
Zrim – But in many ways thats a very generic description that doesn’t explain much, I can imagine someone with pro cultural transformation leanings using similiar language and still using the language of means to justify transformative efforts. [It also tends to turn very much on your definition of essence – which is a word I don’t think Tim Keller used anyway – he could still make the points he made using the term ‘condition’.].
LikeLike
Chris E, to add to Zrim’s point, another problem with saying that NYC needs to be redeemed is that so much of Redeemer’s outlook is about affirming NYC and its arts and culture. So which is it? Does it need to be redeemed? Or does the church to become Manhattanized?
LikeLike
Richard G., you are right. There is much overlap between 2k and sphere sovereignty. But the Neo-Cals don’t like 2k because it isn’t pure philosophically. Neo-Cals insist on starting with the right presuppositions or worldview. They are Hegelian idealists. The 2kers are more comfortable with natural law and the Scottish Enlightenment. So the neo-Cals’ are ideologues. 2kers are reasonable.
LikeLike
Chris, maybe, but I don’t hear many 2k paleo-Cals with the same understanding of creation talking about cultural transformation.
But when I say essence I mean something ontological-metaphysical (whereas condition is understood in moral-legal terms). And when it is said that creation needs to be redeemed I hear that its essence needs to be transformed, which sounds like the cultural version of the medieval notion that man was created with a certain ontological deficiency. From my experience, the Kellers of the world tend to remain fairly generic themselves as to what they mean when they tout cultural transformationism, which may mean it’s either a scratch-itching-ears sort of inspirationalism, or they really do have something other than a confessionally Protestant understanding of creation. Either way, not good.
LikeLike
Darryl G Hart,
Sincere thanks, but your references to Hegel and the Scottish Enlightenment target a significant hole in my education.
Are you saying that a 2K’er can freely work in a number of ways to achieve a desired result in political economy, while a neo-Calvinist would insist upon such work as leading to necessary cultural transformation? A 2K’er could in good conscience be a libertarian, conservative, or even socialist, while a neo Calvinist would be more constrained, based upon the desire for transformation? This would then place the neo-Calvinist in a midpoint on a spectrum between pure 2K and a theonomist?
Should I put down the Kuyper and stick with Wendell Berry?
LikeLike
Richard G., Always stand by Berry. But read him and Kuyper critically. When it comes to culture and economics, Berry is pretty impressive.
LikeLike