N. T. Wright’s recent appearance at the Evangelical Theological Society has most evangelical biblical and theological professors swooning the way that teenaged females greeted the Beatles almost fifty years ago. What is it with the American obsession with English accents (or Scottish for that matter)? In response to a post by Doug Wilson on yet further discussion of Wright’s views in which Wilson criticizes Scott Clark, Stellman spots the subtext of Wilson’s beef with Clark:
But when you stop and think about it, it becomes immediately clear that the errors for which Clark faults Wright are the very same errors for which he faults Wilson. Wilson’s mocking dismissal of Clark’s disagreements with the New Perspective, therefore, can seemingly be explained by the fact that they also apply to the Federal Vision.
It would appear, then, that the reason Wilson wants people like Clark banned from the New Perspective discussion is not really because of the overly-scrupulous nature of his attacks, but because those attacks aren’t narrow enough to just zero in on Durham, but they also set their sights upon Moscow, Idaho. In a word, Wilson’s problem isn’t that Clark is too nitpicky, it’s that he’s not nitpicky enough, for if he would agree to pinpoint only those errors of Wright’s that Wilson agrees are erroneous, then all would be well and Clark would welcomed back into the discussion. But since his attacks on Wright are broader than what Wilson is comfortable with, he is branded a mere irritant and dismissed with a wave of the hand.
Not only a ding ding ding ding moment, but Stellman’s outlook is further proof that 2k is far more reliable than its hysterical opponents suppose. In fact, we are still waiting for the anti-2k folks to step up to the plate on justification.
Old Life 
What would it look like for the anti-2k folks to “step up to the plate on justification”?
LikeLike
There is not threat of discipline when you talk 2K and Neo-Calism life and culture transformation; there is threat of discipline when you present your views of justification. Neo-Cal is more prone to go the Federal Vision, New Perspective on Paul or other deviations from the Luther and Calvin reformation perspective of justification.
It certainly wouldn’t look like Dick Allen stepping up to the plate.
LikeLike
Of course, since there far, far, far more neocals than paleocals, the math of the matter is simple enough. So that there are more neocals that go NPP or FV isn’t as “shocking” as some want to make it. Moreover, since I think Darryl would apply the same razor to neocal that he does to evangelicalism—i.e., there is no such thing, no where I could send a letter to resign if I wanted to—then it’s going to be a huge burden to try and show that neocal *qua* neocal is what is the reason or cause for more going NPP/FV than a simple matter of mathematical probability. Of course, many neocal/ anti-2k folks have argued strongly on the justification issue, viz. Carson, Schreiner, Piper, &c.
LikeLike
Paul, Carson, Schreiner, and Piper are not anti-2k. Neither are they neo-cal. So what are you talking about?
LikeLike
Joseph, it would look like the Bayly Brothers calling Doug Wilson on his Federal Vision theology.
LikeLike
Darryl, far from calling Wilson on his FV theology they link to Wilson’s blog (and that of George Grant) under the “Pastors” heading. They also seem to think it would be great for everyone to visit the “special event” that is the CREC general assembly. I wouldn’t hold your breath.
Maybe they don’t think FV is dangerous. I’m not sure what to make of this quote from the Bayly Brother’s blog (posted in July 2010, after their return from the PCA GA): “I’m inclined to view the debate over Federal Vision which culminated in the 2007 GA adopting the ad interim report on Federal Vision as having proven a negative turning point in the life of the PCA despite having attended GA that year specifically to vote for the report. It wasn’t the TRs who won that battle, it was the BRs. And ironically, the BR’s are probably even more enamored of Bishop Wright than the FVs.”
LikeLike
Tim Bayly has Wilson’s marriage book on his list of best books on marriage. That’s interesting. It reminds me of the NT Wright books on Keller’s Redeemer book table after service. It strikes me as odd that PCA ministers recommend sanctification literature written by folk that have messed up justification.
LikeLike
Really, Darryl? Then you either have a very narrow and specific and rigid view of “neocal” or you have a very wide, embracing, and ecumenical view of 2k. I read Carson’s book on Christ and Culture (twice), and he takes issue with you and your brand of 2k (in fact, Stellman felt the need to come to your, and the 2k, defense by responding to Carson (with a horrible and unscholarly book “review,” to which carson emailed me and said my response to Stellman was right on target). Piper is what you’d call pietist, neocal, Kuyperian, and worldviewist, same with Schreiner and Carson. Those guys support “every member minstry” and a many more things you constantly take shots at them over. You even wondered “*if* the Gospel Coalition embraces 2k, will 2k lose its edge?” Those guys enjoy and like Frame. I also have several friends at SBTS, and I know things that are said.
So, if you must know, the best exegetical work on this doctrine as well as almost any others, are being done by non-2k, “evangelical, worldviewers.” 2kers are almost all, to a man, *historical* theologians. I find that very interesting and ripe for analysis, but I digress.
LikeLike
Joseph,
that quote from the Bayly Blog underscores their belief that there are two errors which exist in the PCA:
1) Federal Vision (remember, it was noted by David that he voted *for* the report)…and FV is a *small* fragment (sometimes only a figment).
2) Mushy-gooshy non-Reformed hoity-toity artsy fartsies who think NT Wright is swell…sweller than FV guys think he is…in short, feminism has entered the ranks of the PCA. Note Tim Keller. Also note Redeemer’s version of a seminary in cahoots with none other than president of WTS Peter Lillback…who has hired a feminist at WTS and also advanced women to the rank of office holders at his former church, Proclamation, PCA.
#1 is a small section of the PCA (and should be dealt with), while #2 is determining the direction of the PCA, of which there is deafening silence.
The PCA now has sleeping guards that allow error in only to be awakened by yappy chiauaus. The chiauaus need to be dealt with, but their barking points to a more present danger.
BTW: Darryl…have you gotten my 2 emails? I’m not sure if you changed email addresses. Just wanted to be sure you got them.
LikeLike
Paul, come now and get a grip. You tout epistemology as the royal road to worldview. I don’t think the folks at TGC can spell epistemology or Dooyeweerd.
I am well aware of Carson’s book and I find his words gracious compared to some of yours and compared to the Baylys and the good Rabbi from Michigan.
LikeLike
Paul, I wonder what you thought was so horrible about Stellman’s review of Carson. (It’s funny that you ding him for being “unscholarly.” It was merely a blog review, as I recall, but maybe you’ve been biten by the over-realizing bug again. Blogs are living rooms and pubs, not halls and publishing houses.)
But what I liked about it was the skepticism of Carson’s claim, against “minimalists” like Hart and Frederica Mathewes-Green, that the redeemed are uniquely qualified to “transform social structures.” That’s the sort of skepticism one finds in Hunter’s To Change the World. Not only does it seem this side of naive to think the redeemed are uniquely qualified for such complicated tasks (or even called to it, for that matter), but also that anyone, being sanctified or not, can actually “transform social structures.” The brilliance of Hunter’s eleven-proposition-insight is that “Culture…is a knotty, difficult, complex, perhaps impossible puzzle…one cannot merely change worldviews or question one’s own very easily…Most of what really counts, in terms of what shapes and directs us, we are not aware of; it operates far below what most of us are capable of consciously grasping.â€
But it seems to me that what certain logicians, philosophers, exegetes and apologists need is a good dose of sober historical analysis. Make that a double dose in special cases.
LikeLike
Darryl, can you explain what you mean by saying I “tout epistemology as the royal road to worldview,” and provide quotes from be doing so?
Which words of mine are “ungracious,” and, if I were you, I’d stay away from calling the kettle black, okay pot?
Zrim,
Stellman’s review appeared in ModRef. So will you apologize, or were bitten by the under-realizing bug again? Aside from that, the errors Stellman makes were unacceptable, even if it were a blog. It’s almost as if he didn’t read the entire book.
As far as my review of Stellman’s review and what I found bad in it, see here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/12/christ-culture-revisted-review-reviewd.html
I cite quotes from Carson directly to the contrary of your slander of Carson and Stellman’s.
Before you go bashing logicians, exegetes, philosophers and the like, and lauding historians (on my blog I point out the benefit of studying all areas), why don’t you take up reading first? Make that a double dose in your case.
And, yes, Hunter’s claims sounds just like Carson’s. So you struck out all around.
Per the OP. It is the non-2kers who are doing the best work in theology and exegesis and philosophy &c. Why is that? Do any 2kers have scholarly exegetical commentaries on books of the Bible out? Maybe that explains Darryl saying that the WCF does *exegesis*.
LikeLike
Zrim, as far as logicians, philosophers, and exegetes taking their dose of HT, you can see here that you are just non conversant with the relevant literature:
http://aporeticchristianity.wordpress.com/2010/11/13/historical-and-analytic-theology/
Funny thing is, where is Zrim’s cry in the wilderness that his favorite Historical Theologians get good at systematic theology, exegesis, philosophy, and logic? That Zrim doesn’t bother to call out the glaring and obvious and embarrassing failures everyone can see in some of his favorite authors is telling. Zrim thinks he and his side know everything about everything and never need to be corrected (when’s the last time any of you here saw Darryl or Zrim admit they were wrong?).
LikeLike
Paul, while you and I would probably differ over 2K, and I would take issue with some of Carson’s conclusion, I must say that your “review” of Stellman’s review of Carson was spot on. You are correct that too often the 2K camp reflexivily spouts talking points and buzz words rather than address real issues in the real world, in real, concrete ways. Rev. Stellman is a good man, but his “review” of Carson’s book was replete with errors and logical fallacies. I thought Carson’s book was quite well done and scored many good points. Many of us in the 2K camp can learn a great deal from the thoughtful analysis that Dr. Carson offers about the potential for improvement of culture even though the goal is never “redemption” or “transformation.” Some in the 2K camp are unduly pessimistic about the potential for improvement.
LikeLike
CVanDyke,
I’m in the 2k camp 🙂 “I’m wit chew. I’m wit chew guys.”
LikeLike
Paul, thanks. Again, more liturgical versus philosophical. Why do some philosophers demand everybody be philosophers though?
And, what, to demur on Carson when he implies that there are “things we can do to improve and even transform social structures” is slander? Since when was taking a restrained and conservative view on such things slander?
LikeLike
CVD, so this is what makes me extreme, that I am pessimistic?
And where is the Christian list of “real” issues? I’d like to have a copy.
LikeLike
Craig,
I know Tim Bayley said he voted for the measure in 2007, but I’m confused why, if the Bayly Brothers think FV is dangerous (and they seem to have thought so in 2007), three years later, they consider the PCA’s approach to the FV as “a negative turning point in the life of the PCA.” And in Nov. 2008, the Bayly Brothers wanted everyone to know what a great time they had at the CREC GA. Seems like mixed signals to me: “Boy that FV stuff is real dangerous, but everything else about the FV folk is super swell. In fact, we have a lot to learn from them.”
It’s not as if only one error can be excluded from the PCA. FV shouldn’t be allowed and neither should NPP. I keep coming back to the same thought: where you have influential men promoting false doctrines directly related to justification, why put anything they’ve written on the book table? This applies to those PCA churches that are enamor w/ NT Wright as well as those who continue recommending FV sanctification literature to their flock. This problem is not only in the PCA — two weeks ago I visited a URC in nyc. They were using a book about hospitality written by Steve Wilkins. According to Guy Waters, Doug Wilson’s family books are a very common entrée into the FV.
LikeLike
Joseph,
Your point about Doug Wilson’s books being entry points into the FV (and other unsavory teachings) needs underscoring. I know many people who are enamored of Wilson because of his marriage books (which BTW have not an ounce of gospel in them), classical education books and essays, and general musings, and from that move on to Steve Wilkins, NT Wright, and NPP, and swollow the FV and NPP whole.
The PCA and other churches also need to stop encouraging members to read any NT Wright or Wilson or FV “sanctificaiton” literature. (I know churches whose bookstores sell “safe” NT Wright and “safe” Wilson.) When people fall in love with the author, they go on to read more of the author’s works that are “not safe.” Then they get confused. Whatever teaching Wright or Wilson or Wilkins has that is salutary can be presented by a better author and not risk the flock being lured away by false shepherds.
LikeLike
Zrim, everyone has a philosophy and everyone does philosophy. So, since you’re gonna do it, why not do it well? Everyone goes to the bathroom too but I don’t see you lauding grown men dirtying their drawers. I mean, I guess they can if they want to, but it’s just messy, diry, stinky, and embarrassing. Kind of similar to some people’s poorly-thought-out philosophy. And, just because that man doesn’t think his own pants stink doesn’t mean they really smell likr roses.
And Zrim, you could have just slipped into the shaddows, but since you brought it up, you said:
“against “minimalists†like Hart and Frederica Mathewes-Green, that the redeemed are uniquely qualified to “transform social structures”
My post shows Carson directly and explicitly contradicting this Stellmanian strawman.
In any case, Stellman’s review was a hatchet job and it throws a bad light on his other writings. I haven’t found him to be a particularly careful, cautious, and well-informed thinker….but he sure does have his cultural references down!
LikeLike
“Paul, I wonder what you thought was so horrible about Stellman’s review of Carson. (It’s funny that you ding him for being “unscholarly.†It was merely a blog review, as I recall, but maybe you’ve been biten by the over-realizing bug again. Blogs are living rooms and pubs, not halls and publishing houses.)
Zrim, will you admit that you were bitten by the under-realizing bug again?
LikeLike
Under-realized or over-realized this is a debate that could go on ad infinitum. And is it not a matter of Christian liberty? If we have the talents, capabilities and energy that allow us to be of benefit to our neighbors we have the liberty to do all the culture transforming we want. And if we are smart make some money while doing it for our families and Churches. It all depends on the spheres we are capable of performing in and if it doesn’t take away from the duties we are called to in our Church life and with our families.
We also do not have to take on a martyr or messiah complex while performing our duties towards our neighbors, families and Church congregants. It seems to me we have the best of both world’s while performing our callings in both Kingdoms. The 2Kers are more prone to spend more time in Church and family while the neo-cals want to spend more time in the culture. What I think 2K does is not make me responsible for having to think I have to transform the culture in any way. Like it is my duty to do so. It should be a joy for me to serve my neighbor in my vocational calling as best I can out of gratitude for what Christ has done for me. Some will be put in positions to be of great benefit to many in the culture- others won’t. Regular Law and Gospel preaching will enable me to do the things God has called me to do in His Word. Does it have to be anymore complicated than that?
The complicating factor is always our sin which drives us inward and disables our abilities to be outward towards others. The only solution is Law, Gospel and Sacrament which enables us to do God’s will. The mystery to me is what keeps those who seclude themselves from Law, Gospel and Sacrament from keeping on in the culture. That can only be answered by the mystery of God’s common grace and providence.
LikeLike
I was told I was over realizing because I called a blog post “unscholarly” (don’t know why a blog post can’t be scholarly). But since I didn’t call a blog post unscholarly but a book review in ModRef magazine, I was wondering if Z was willing to play by his own rules.
And, you didn’t need 2k to tell you that you don’t need to transform your culture, that’s been said for years by those not down with this modern 2k movement. Even Greg Bahnsen didn’t think you had to transform your culture. However, you should “be ready,” and unfortunately this modern version of 2k seems to make people unprepared and lazy, unable to give a *reason* for the hope within them.
LikeLike
John, the 2K advocates on this blog tend to assert that Christians have “Christian liberty” to improve the culture or engage the culture or transform the culture and such, but then they assert that most such activity is “unwise”, unbiblical, a confusion of the kingdoms, etc. So while approving such activity with one breath, with another breath the activity and actor is criticized. I agree 2K liberates from a sense of responsibility to transform the culture. But then, as Dr. Carson and C.E.B. Cranfield point out, our Christian duty of gratitude includes serving our neighbor by our activity in the political and cultural realms. So we have a joyful duty of service that is also liberating.
LikeLike
CVD nails.
LikeLike
Wrong again, CVD. Have your turned into Mark Van Der Molen. The activity is not necessarily unwise, but the reasons may be, and the reasons may also confuse the kingdom or the intentions of the people Christians are trying to change. And if you’d read Hunter, you’d see that political and legal battles have been a colossal waste of time. You may think that extreme. But that’s not much of an argument.
LikeLike
DGH, you overstate Hunter, who in any event is no expert on law or politics. He’s a pundit and academic and paints with the usual academic’s broad brush into abstraction and irrelevancy. (I know; I’m an academic too, with one foot, but keep one foot in reality.) Legal and political battles have succeeded overwhelmingly in thousands of cases of which I have personal knowledge and many of which I’ve participated in and won. The test of the efficacy of political and cultural battles is not whether the secular tide has been turned back or the culture war won. Hunter argues that the culture wars didn’t work. No surprise. Culture wars were never the right approach and should not have been the goal. Any good lawyer would know that. I don’t do culture war. But because you and your acolytes deal in abstractions, you wouldn’t know where the goal posts are if you ran headlong into them.
LikeLike
And, John, there are other 2k advocates on this blog who don’t seem to understand what it means to want to at once retain the dignity of political and legislative involvement and lower the stakes for what those efforts can actually accomplish, or that such endeavors are but one way believers out of gratitude can serve their neighbors. They don’t seem to have a shaded category for somewhere between full-throated and apathetic, two shades of black and white believers are also at liberty to have but might also have something to learn from the mediocre amongst us. I for one know that I get the same pushback from the politically apathetic for questioning their apathy that I get from the politically full-throated for questioning their chutzpa. Ironically, I have found that both apathy and full-throatedness share an equally misguided premise about politics. The apathetic are typically former full-throats.
Paul, I give you reasons and arguments all the time. They’re never ever good enough. Often it’s like engaging a philosphical unbeliever who demands more sight than faith, and when I can’t deliver the goods then I have no right to faith and am called lazy and all the rest. I get that you don’t like my 2k viewpoint, but does it ever bother you that you behave more like the antagonistic unbeliever?
LikeLike
CVD, and you get Hunter wrong. The culture wars were fought and still are by the likes of you — attorneys who think that Christians are being attacked if their freedoms are in the slightest way curtailed. And those efforts at law and policy — remember — the culture warriors voted for, gave donations to, and poured all sorts of hopes in — politicans and legal experts to change the culture.
Meanwhile, Hunter, an expert in how societies operate is wrong because an attorney whose bread is buttered by litigious Christians says so.
Sorry for the snark, but if you’re going to come here and call me extreme then you may not receive a civil response.
Are you off your meds? For a while there you were actually defending 2k. Now you’re back to merely kvetching.
LikeLike
Zrim, when you come across a valid logical argument and you can show no premise false, but you still reject the conclusion, you disqualify yourself from the reason-giving game. I don’t know if you just don’t get the importance of doing this (you’ve done it twice to me now), or just don’t care. Also, when you are given arguments you can’t answer, instead of scale back your claim you just say, “Well I’m still right. I can be right without an argument, or even if I lose the argument.” Again, you violate the tacit agreement to having rational discourse. And, yes, you do give me reasons. More correctly, you assert a lot. But when I question either the validity of the inference or the truth of your premises, you then engage in name calling about logic, reason, philosophy, etc. Of course, I don’t act like the antagonistic unbeliever since I proudly stand in a Christian tradition that goes back to the beginning. It’s the tradition of faith seeking understanding and an appreciation for the reasoning abilities God has given us. I hold several premises on the basis of the Bible’s say-so, and I also have laid out my position on the limits of reason and the appreciation and acceptance of mystery (you have not done that, or ever shown your respect for reason). So your charge is flat-out wrong (especially considering that I have used my Christian worldview + reason to debate several antagonistic unbelievers. I was called and invited by the Infidel Guy Radio program, for example, to debate the president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They knew they’d get a Christian who was not only a sold-out Christian, but someone who could offer reasons for the faith we Confess.) The real question, to turn tables, is to say that I get that you don’t like my brand of 2k and historic Christian views on things, but does it ever bother you that you behave more like the irrational fideist who says, “Yuk, yuk, don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up.”?
LikeLike
In other words, CVD, get in line, sit down, tout the party line, or shut up!
LikeLike
Zrim: “Paul, I give you reasons and arguments all the time. They’re never ever good enough. Often it’s like engaging a philosphical unbeliever who demands more sight than faith…”
This sounds more like the sort of appeal you would excoriate anyone else for asserting. I agree one need not be able to argue ably in order to be correct, but as noted: you have implicitly accepted certain rules for discourse. I would put my own abilities at or below your own, but Paul has dedicated years of personal study and is now in formal training.
I’ve been reading his comments and Jeff Cagle’s closely the last couple of weeks and they constantly show a concerted effort at bringing the conversation back to the point and showing fundamental flaws in the conversation…to minds like my own, it can be frustrating, but that’s how an undisciplined mind will usually take the disciplined mind.
Unfortunately, there are many times that the views accepted at this blog are assumed so deeply that every other view is simply mischaracterized or dismissed (usually because of mischaracterization). To carry on discourse requires a far more gruelling application of basic rules for argumentation since it appears there is so little familiarity with them…these rules are brought out regularly as a result…it’s at that point such men weilding these standards are taken to be “ungracious”, or as you put it later: like arguing with an unbeliever.
Zrim, you have been ungracious and undisciplined in your approach to many who have participated here (and elsewhere). You could learn a lot about debating if you listen to Paul (even if you don’t agree with his version of 2K)…as is, you are simply restricting yourself to being argumentative.
LikeLike
I can understand objections to the aesthethics of culture wars. I can understand chafing under the idea that culture war enlistment is mandatory. I don’t understand objecting to asking the magistrate for justice or liberty for christian litigants. This is the kind of thing that prompts the “r” in “r2k.” 2k should be conducive to the co-existence of activists and quietists.
LikeLike
DGH, with all due respect, do you really think this is a professional or appropriate way to address someone? There are young men modeling themselves after you, such as Zrim. Is it any wonder that you have the reputation you have, and 2K is not well received in the Reformed world. A word to the wise, and I mean this with all respect. A scholar of first rate standing shows decorum and professionalism in dialogue and debate and does not descend to the sandbox in a sophomoric way. I’ve taught at many institutions, among well known scholars, and never seen this behavior. I mention this because I sincerely care about the doctrine of 2k and do not wish it to be so easily dismissed and maligned.
You may be intested to know that Professor Hunter is a professor of “religion and culture,” a generalist and a theoretician, not a specialist in any recognized discipline. He would not even be citable or admissible in a refereed academic journal, research journal of any graduate school of public policy, or law review. For an assessment of the impact of lobbyists, specialists in impact litigation, and policy advocates, you could consult the journals of the Harvard Kennedy School (where I taught for a time), the Heritage Foundation, the National Center for Public Policy Research, the Amereican Enterprise Institute, the Hoover Institution, the University of Chicago Law School, or the UCLA Law School, and the UCLA Political Science Department journals. Their assessment is marketly at odds with that of Professor Hunter.
LikeLike
Craig, actually I think you and Paul could learn a thing or two from Jeff. He is clearly not convinced of certain 2k points but engages them with a fuller measure of graciousness and honesty.
But if you’re right then all we really need are the Reformed logician-philosophers to keep everything orthodox, including the creeds, confessions and catechisms. Maybe you see nothing wrong with that, but that sort of outlook isn’t really an ecclesiastical one. I know this is the part where I am called an undisciplined, irrational and toothless fundie, but even so I do not esteem the philosophical exegete over the church’s confession. True, philosophy is to be esteemed over marketing, but in the end I don’t see much difference between the church being run by smart philosophers or savvy marketeers. And that’s because I place philosophy into the same temporal category as marketing: they serve a worldly purpose but not an eternal one. And if you’re right, and the philosophers really are the vanguards of Christian orthodoxy, I really don’t know how to make sense out of St. Paul’s claim that the gospel is foolishness to the Greeks who seek wisdom (read: philosophers). How can those who demur on the claim that worldly wisdom is dung really be in charge of the church’s confession?
LikeLike
CVD, in professional circles people don’t call call scholars with reputations “extreme.” Attorney, pardon thyself.
And in case you haven’t noticed, this is not a professional meeting of historians, churchmen, or attorneys. It’s a blog. It’s a conversation. And people say lots of different things in a conversation.
As for Hunter’s identity, you left out “Social Theory.” Seems a convenient omission. But it remains the case that his Ph.D. is in sociology, and his appointment at UVA is in the sociology department. So he is more of an expert on what changes societies than you or I.
Again, it seems that your legal worldview is preventing you from seeing the real world. Hunter has written lots of sociology books and I think he’s even testified as an expert witness in the Alabama case (1986) on creation in text books. He is a specialist. But being cited in a law review is all that counts for you. You really should get out more.
LikeLike
Zrim: “Craig, actually I think you and Paul could learn a thing or two from Jeff.”
Craig: I can’t speak for Paul, but you’re certainly right.
Zrim: “But if you’re right then all we really need are the Reformed logician-philosophers to keep everything orthodox…”
Craig said previously: “I agree one need not be able to argue ably in order to be correct, but as noted: you have implicitly accepted certain rules for discourse.”
I obviously limited the scope of the importance of these rules in our context to “discourse”. Just because one may use a hammer against a nail doesn’t mean that one must crack an egg with it.
Zrim: “Maybe you see nothing wrong with that…”
Craig: I do see much wrong with that…which is why I didn’t say “all we really need are the Reformed logician-philosophers”.
Zrim: “I know this is the part where I am called an undisciplined, irrational and toothless fundie…”
Craig: Since I didn’t call you any of the above (except to point out your thinking is not as disciplined as Paul’s…this is far different from calling you “undisciplined, and isn’t even insulting). Hopefully I’m not going to have to apologize for an insult you manufactured yourself.
May I ask that you please take time to read what has been written with a bit more care? I don’t think the alternative to philosophy is a mere exchange of barbs.
LikeLike
Craig, I’m glad you find a lot wrong with thinking all we really need are the Reformed logician-philosophers to keep everything orthodox. But as I see it, that really is the upshot of all of Paul’s points around here: he esteems logic and philosophy over creed and confession (and deems anyone who dares question that in order to put things in a more restrained and conservative light irrational, etc.). So you’ll understand that to tell me to respect the Pauline effort to privilege philosophy over confession sounds pretty close to thinking we really do need the Reformed logician-philosophers to keep everything orthodox.
LikeLike
DGH, the issue you raised was the assertion that “political and legal battles” have been “a waste of time.” Not “changing society.” Professor Hunter may be qualified as a specialist in creation or sociology, but not public policy, public opinion, the legislative process, public administration, or the courts. Therefore, he is not qualified to render an opinion on whether the efforts of legislators, lobbyists, public interest law firms, civil rights groups, interest groups, or such have achieved their goals. Unless he is a specialist in those areas and in communication with other specialists, he would have no way to know what those goals were. Accordingly, it is reckless and irrespnsible to assert that “political and legal battles” have been a waste of time.
LikeLike
Zrim: “But as I see it, that really is the upshot of ALL of Paul’s points around here: he esteems logic and philosophy over creed and confession…”
Are you suggesting that, for example, one of the creeds or confessions offers a position regarding Stellman’s review? Did Paul esteem logic above a creed and come up with a differing opinion?
LikeLike
CVD, so it comes to this — one phrase (and I can’t remember saying it in this barroom discussions), “waste of time” makes me extreme and a bad scholar. Lord be merciful to me a sinner.
But if you were an all-knowing God, you’d also remember that I’ve said repeatedly that all vocations are honorable and worthwhile for Christians.
So how are you going to put the two together? Let Hart be darned.
LikeLike
DGH, you misrepresent my comment. My point was that your version of 2K as articulated by you and channeled through your disciples — your substantially quietist position and total unqualified gag order on churches speaking on a policy issue that intersects God’s law — is not shared by any scholar I know (including those at WSC). It is unique. That doesn’t make you a bad person, just an outlier. Those who condemn 2K because of your views, and your unfortunate way of conveying them, should not dismiss 2K/SOTC as it is articulated by others.
LikeLike
Are you suggesting that, for example, one of the creeds or confessions offers a position regarding Stellman’s review? Did Paul esteem logic above a creed and come up with a differing opinion?
Craig, re the point about Paul esteeming philosophy over confession, I don’t have the review of Stellman in mind so much as statements like this:
“Who says every single proposition in the Confession is correct? That’s gratuitous, especially when the Confession itself warns against this type of thought. Empirically, we know that some Confessional propositions were removed in later Confessions. Sometimes pointing out an unsavory of a propositions might be reason to drop the proposition, or make the necessary adjustments. Philosophers are the ones finding these things out, not the theologians.â€
Agreed that the Confession isn’t infallible and is subject to revision. Disagreed that the philosophers are to thank for finding these things out. The confessions are written and revised by the church, not the academy. A confession is not a philosophical syllogism.
LikeLike
Zrim: “I don’t have the review of Stellman in mind…”
Well, no one can read your mind, Zrim. You had asserted: “But as I see it, that really is the upshot of ALL of Paul’s points around here: he esteems logic and philosophy over creed and confession…â€
If ALL of Pauls points esteem philosophy over creed, then that would include the Stellman review. Obviously you didn’t mean “all”, which is why I posed the question…be sure you’re representing another man correctly.
Zrim quoted Paul as saying: “Philosophers are the ones finding these things out, not the theologians.â€
Let me make a grammatical point, and not a philosophical one: an indicative statment is not a statement of “oughtness”. I have no idea if Paul is correct, but grammatically speaking, he hasn’t suggested anything. He has made a factual claim.
Like you, I would not agree with the statement if it were a statement of “ought”(i.e. philosophers *ought* to be the ones revising the Confession).
Zrim: “Disagreed that the philosophers are to thank for finding these things out.”
I have no opinion on this…it’s a factual claim that may or may not be correct and has no bearing on whether philosophers *should* be the ones doing these things as opposed to theologians. I would not preclude philosophers from helping, but that’s because I see philosophy as a handmaiden to theology…serving, not usurping. R.C. Sproul (an evidentialist) says as much, and so does Scott Oliphint (a presuppositionalist)…both whom are theologians, and not philosophers.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that Zrim cannot quote me doing what he says I do. It’s simply more of his straw manning and employment of sophistic rhetoric. Of necessity, it seems Zrim must recast his interlocutor’s points into uncharitable and ridiculous terms (always absent any quotes, mind you) so that he can appear to have a voice in the conversation.
I also like how he equivocates and tells me to study Jeff when the point was about rationality and logic, not instancing modern, Western notions of politeness. Zrim resorts to undermining the moral character of his opponents when he can’t win the reason giving game.
Also, one can go to my blog and see that I have plenty of nice, civil dialogue with people. It’s when people like Zrim act obtuse and name call and misrepresent and distort that they get sterner responses from me. Moreover, Zrim only seems to care about virtues of discourse rather than virtues of the mind. Why doesn’t he ever worry about people reasoning badly? That is telling.
LikeLike
CVD, how’s this from the outlier J. Gresham Machen, on whom I cut my 2k teeth:
So again, before you start determining who’s in and who’s out, you might want to read the work of respected historians.
LikeLike
CVD, I’m interested in whether you would categorize the following as more outlier or mainstream 2k proposition:
The cultural or civil sphere is normed by God’s general or natural revelation. Special revelation wasn’t given to norm cultural or civil life. E.g. if we wish to apply special revelation to civil life, then we should all become theonomists, since they are those who wish to apply the only civil code in Scripture (the Mosaic civil laws) to post-canonical civil life.
LikeLike
DGH, as a general proposition that is true. But the Machen quote does not address the extraordinary situation or the pastor addressing issues where the public policy and biblical law intersect. The WCF does:
“Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary ….”
Your position that there is an unqualified gag order on the church is inconsistent with WCF 31.4.
Your position that it is “unwise/a kingdom confusion” for individual Christians to engage
in public political engagement or lobbying is inconsistent with Machen’s lobbying Congress over public policy issues concerning public education (testifying before Congress is quintessential, textbook lobbying and activism). I testify before state legislatures’ in committee hearings in my “activism” role. But what is ok for Machen is unwise activism by anyone else, apparently.
LikeLike
For Zrim:
Jesus and philosophy:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Philosophy-Paul-K-Moser/dp/0521694868/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3#_
http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=39
LikeLike
Craig, I wouldn’t preclude philosophers from helping either, but it’s when handmaidens make themselves Matrons of Honor that I wonder. Plus, if common fishermen can be apostles who refute sophisticated philosophers then the church is fundamentally different from the academy.
LikeLike
No one has made philosophers matrons of honors, Zrim. You’ve had to spin things that way to stay in the conversation. In any case, yes, you do mind philosphers helping. You have never read one. Never taken the advice of one. Never had one nice or respectful thing to say of one. And you have also demeaned them, as well as the tools they specialize in and have mastered.
Plus, if common fishermen can be apostles and do good theology and know the history of the church, then the church is fundamentally different from the academy; so R.S. Clark and D.G. Hart &Co. shouldn’t have got a PhD??? What the heck was your point?
LikeLike
For Zrim:
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Philosophy-Paul-K-Moser/dp/0521694868/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3#_
LikeLike
And see this one:
http://www.equip.org/articles/jesus-philosopher-and-apologist
LikeLike
Paul, the point was a pro-ecclesiastical one, not an anti-intellectual one. Or do you think elders need PhD’s to do their churchly work? Elders who also are academics do for their academic work, but not elders for their churchly work.
But I have a liberal arts education, so I have read philosophy. Aristotle was cool, but he’s no Paul. Is that mean? I’ve also read lots of fictional literature. I happen to prefer it over philosophy (and science, psychology, sociology, history, political science, etc.) to get a window into humanity, but I don’t think fiction writers by virtue of being such should have a seat at Synod or GA or otherwise “bring their work of fiction writing into the theological fold.â€
LikeLike
Mark, I don’t know who wrote that, and I think some 2K scholars use more even-toned rhetoric, but it’s within the mainstream. Not all, but most would affirm that as citizens of Christ’s kingdom, Christians live under the authority of Christ as revealed in Scripture (special revelation); in the civil kingdom, humanity lives under the authority of the laws of the land, general revelation and natural law.
LikeLike
Zrim: “Craig, I wouldn’t preclude philosophers from helping either, but it’s when handmaidens make themselves Matrons of Honor that I wonder. Plus, if common fishermen can be apostles who refute sophisticated philosophers then the church is fundamentally different from the academy.”
That’s a fantastic point. I haven’t seen anyone in this discussion say otherwise.
For fishermen to counfound philosophers, or debaters of the age, they require the power of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is much more powerful and in no way relies on the weak means of semantics, and misrepresentation.
Preaching is not a philosophical discourse, and neither is the construction of a Confession. When one enters into a dialogue, however, certain rules do apply. To conflate standards for discourse with the standards of the preached Word and/or construction of Confessions would co-mingle the kingdoms. After all, your discourse with Paul is not a Confessional standard, nor is it a means of grace.
LikeLike
CVD, I have not put a gag order on Christians engaging in various forms of public service or engagement. I really would appreciate your not falsifying what I have said repeatedly in distinguishing between the church institutionally and individual Christians. I would also appreciate it if you acknowledged that your views are extreme in ruling me outside what Machen said. If you continue to misrepresent me I will assume the prerogatives I have as moderator of the blog.
LikeLike
Zrim, being forced to speed read Aristotle in college doesn’t count.
LikeLike
CVD, let me help Mark out. Given his animus against Dave VanDrunen, you might expect the quote to be from DVD. Turns out its from the object Kloosterman’s animus, Scott Clark. And here is the full context for MDVM’s snippet.
LikeLike
Mark, why do you play games? Why not just come out and explain to us the true way, without any quotes?
LikeLike
DGH, I resent your accusation and am through with you. I’ve tolerated your offensive and disingenuous rhetoric long enough. Your sophomoric ways are beyond the pale. You are arrogant and rude and your willingness to mischaracterize, throw out gratuitous insults, is unprofessional and most unbecoming of someone who apsires to serve the church. I have no intention of visiting your site again.
LikeLike
Zrim, I’ve already explained how you’re anti-intellectual, where am I off in that analysis? To deny a *paradigm* of rationality (validity and soundness) is anti-intellectual.
Oh, and I appreciate your primary *philosophical* explanation of liking literature. 😉
LikeLike
Zrim, since you admit that philosophy is basically useless to you, and that you have never read any philosophy (apart from being forced to read Aristotle while, no doubt, not understanding his system of thought). So, (a) how is it that you can say that you think philosophy is “helpful,” and (b) attack it and critique it and disaprare it since you, per your own words, have no clue whatsoever of the merits of philosophy???
LikeLike
Paul, it’s funny how you do with a tamping down of logic and philosophy what CVD does with a tamping down of politics and legislation. I get you guys lovelovelurv your disciplines, but when you both demand we all have the same affection for them I want to tell you guys to get a room already. Public displays of affection are unbecoming.
Look, the simple point being made here is that there has to be a shaded area between apathy and full-throat. Nobody is telling you that philosophy is useless when it is said that it’s not the height of Christian understanding, just like nobody is telling CVD politics is futile when it is said that it’s not the pinnacle of Christian action.
But what do I know, I’m just an irrational anti-intellectual. Boo.
LikeLike
Darryl, as you wish. I’ll summarize the confessional position for you: God’s will as revealed in Scripture is normative on all men everywhere. That would include activity and vocations outside the visible church, eg. the magistrate, the trades, the academy, and yes, even Westminster West.
Now I wish you hadn’t driven C Van Dyke away. I was hoping to engage him a bit further using your #1 fan’s quote to show that you are in fact NOT an outlier among the current crop of “2k”-ers. How about apologizing to him and inviting him back so I can defend you as in line with the rest of your “2K” friends.
LikeLike
CVD, your call. But you have made patently wrong assertions about my views, even after I made contrary assertions and clarified. It strikes me that that is conduct unbecoming persons. Courts of law could not exist with such behavior.
LikeLike
Mark, thanks for the clarification. Then please answer the question that lurks behind your assertions about the magistrate. The Bible condemns idolatry and blasphemy and says it should be punished. In the OT it is punished with death. The NT is silent about such punishment. The Belgic was not silent and said the magistrate should also punish blasphemy and heresy. Blasphemers and heretics were either expelled or executed. That is the biblical view according to your reading of the Bible’s claims on magistrates.
But now you do not think the magistrate should enforce what the Bible says about blasphemers and idolaters.
So you don’t actually hold to the standard you use against 2k. Plus, you are outside the mainstream of 16th and 17th century Reformed thought that you constantly use against 2k.
Where do you get the get out of jail free card that allows you to disregard the biblical and confessional standards that you uphold?
LikeLike
Darryl, your question is answered by the revision to Belgic 36. While retaining the Word’s limits on the magistrate’s rule {e.g. Daniel obeying God rather than man}, it removed the coercive suppression of heresy and idolatry. That was viewed as a misapplication of the general principle of the Word being normative. Of course, a misapplication does not nullify the general principle. Recall too the article continues to say that the magistrate is to “protect the sacred ministry so the kingdom of God may be thus promoted”, clearly showing the magistrate has a positive interest in seeing First Table matters advance while yet not crossing over into attempting to coerce faith.
The question is *how* the Word is to be applied in the civil realm, not *whether* it applies at all.
LikeLike
Mark, thanks for the clarification. That means that you are closer to me than to Calvin, and that you too view the sixteenth century Reformed creeds on the magistrate as unbiblical. Welcome to the 2k club.
Then again, I’m not bound by Belgic. I subscribe Westminster revised, which says that magistrate has a duty to protect all persons no matter what their belief or lack of it.
Don’t you think it is really wonderfully ecumenical that the Reformed churches even prior to revising Art. 36 never felt compelled to judge the American Presbyterians outside the bounds of fellowship the way that you judge David VanDrunen (who also subscribes the American revision)?
LikeLike
DGH: I subscribe Westminster revised, which says that magistrate has a duty to protect all persons no matter what their belief or lack of it.
WLC: Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate…
It strikes me as somewhat stronger than “a duty to protect all persons no matter what their belief or lack of it.”
What does it mean, in your view, for the “magistrate to countenance and maintain” the church, in light of the historical context in which this was written?
LikeLike
Darryl, where you and I together diverge from Calvin is on the coercive suppression of heresy. But all the Reformed have agreed to that change in our *application* of a broader first principle: the normative role of the Word of God in the civil realm.
But a significant divide remains on that apriori principle: On the one side is R2k’s denial of special revelation being normative in the civil realm. On the other side is Calvin, the Puritans, the Neo-Cals, and the *revised* Reformed confessions affirmation of the principle.
LikeLike
Got it, Mark. So you are allowed to depart from Scripture on the penalty for idolatry but I am not allowed to depart from Scripture in arguing for the freedom of idolaters to practice their faith.
You know, Mark, you really are in a pickle here. Whether or not the magistrate executes idolaters, the Bible is clear about the wickedness of idolatry. You seem to think that by no longer executing heretics, we have somehow solved the problem of the old Reformed views of the magistrate. But even if Geneva had not executed Servetus, Geneva would not have allowed Baptists to live there. That means that unless you think the magistrate should restrict false practices, both non-Christian and those claiming to be Christian, you do uphold the Bible as a norm for civil life. If the Bible were a norm, would our neighbors be free to practice Mormonism and Roman Catholicism?
Just to connect the dots for you, by working with Roman Catholics in Dutch politics, Abraham Kuyper was not using the Bible as a standard for civic life. Where do believers ever cooperate with idolaters in Scripture?
LikeLike
Darryl, so you think the revised Belgic is a departure from Scripture and puts us TFU folks in a pickle. That’s fine you admit your problem with this. That’s been my point for some time now.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Are you saying that Roman Catholic error rises to the level of anathema? Is it their doctrine of justification that is the clincher? Or is it because they articulated the Gospel at Trent and called it anathema? Sorry if this is a bit of point.
Has any protestant ecclesiastical body made such a determination?
LikeLike
Got it, Mark. You either think that Scripture requires the prohibition of blasphemy and idolatry but allows the magistrate freedom not to enforce it, or you think that the Bible does not require the prohibition of blasphemy and idolatry and Calvin and Knox were wrong to read the Bible as if it did. That sounds like a dill pickle to me.
LikeLike
Biblicism is never enough. Nor is democracy. You need a pope. Or a Speaker of the House.
https://kareem.substack.com/p/speaker-johnson-wants-to-cancel-separation
LikeLike
Or N T Wright. Nobody until Wright ever understood just how synergistic Paul was. Not even Shepherd or Gaffin or Mark Garcia.
Wright–So what we might have met in Sunday School, as an apparently comforting proverb about how everything is going to pan out all right somehow, is in fact a challenging—but still also comforting
—statement about Christian vocation. At the very moment when we are caught up in the unspeakable groaning of all creation, the Spirit is working in our hearts to bring us in tune with God’s loving and healing purposes. God made humans to share in his work. We are to be people of prayer at the places where the world is in pain. And in the present time this kind of lament is what prayer looks like. When we take up that calling, we are caught up in the love of God; and God is working all things together for good with those who love him.
That’s why, in the new edition of the New Testament for Everyone, I have translated Romans 8:28 this way: “We know, in fact, that God works all things together for good with those who love him, who are
called according to his purpose.” It’s partly also why I wrote a whole book, Into the Heart of Romans about just that one chapter of the Bible.
https://time.com/6322429/bibles-most-misunderstood-verse/
LikeLike