Carl Trueman wrote a series of posts about how churches go liberal. Among the culprits are celebrity pastors, pastors who publicly reject a denomination or church’s professed standards, and their enablers, pastors who pursue peace and purity of the church to avoid controversy.
As the Baylys point out — and this is truly scary when you are 2k and find yourself agreeing with 2k haters — Trueman’s post lacks specifics; it’s an abstract account of how churches go liberal (which is surprising since at Westminster Trueman is sitting on a gold mine of evidence about how American Presbyterians lost their way).
One further abstraction that Trueman may have noted was the tendency for Christians to identify their own ideas with the Bible, thus turning the thoughts and words of men into those of God. To avoid the problem of abstraction, I offer the case of — yet again — neo-Calvinism. I understand Baus will go berserk but at his prodding I cracked open Roy Clouser’s Myth of Religious Neutrality and found the following argument identified by Clouser himself as “radically biblical”:
In the context of scientific or philosophical theory making people are generally quite earnest about what they are doing, quite anxious to be as clear as possible, and have nothing to gain by proposing or defending a theory they do not believe. Thus, the possibility of deception rarely interferes in the world of theory making. Of course, the obstacle of cultural difference remains and can perhaps only be overcome by experiencing and appreciating the other culture. But at least one of the two major difficulties with recognizing presuppositions is reduced to a minimum when we are dealing with highly abstract theories.
These features of presuppositions are important because it is by acting as presuppositions that religious beliefs exercise their most important influence on scientific and philosophical theorizing. This point therefore sharply distinguishes the radically biblical position from all the other positions concerning the relation of religion to theory making, including the position of the fundamentalist. The radically biblical view does not seek to find statements in Scripture on every sort of subject matter to establish religious influence. What we want to say is that the influence of religious beliefs is much more a matter of presupposed perspective guiding the direction of theorizing than of Scripture supplying specific truths for theories. (pp. 103-104)
First, I’m not sure why we need a radically biblical understanding of theory making. Why can’t we have Christian liberty about how we make theories — as opposed to the theories we hold. This seems like the philosophical version of the helicopter mom who home schools and doesn’t allow her daughters to eat any nuts for fear of any allergies.
Second, is the Bible given to us to turn us into philosophers? Clouser may think this is a fundamentalist question because it expects to find specific answers from Scripture. But he could simply talk about various philosophies of theory making without using the Bible as an adjective. So why the need to turn a common activity into a supernatural one?
Second, part two, was Paul concerned about theory making? He interacted with philosophers but doesn’t seem to say much about how to do philosophy or the theories of the mind? And what happens when you turn a philosophical theory into the accepted reality for everyone in the church, from Joe the Plumber to Sarah Palin? Do people need to be smart to be Christian?
Third, presuppositions don’t appear to be all that analogous to regeneration. I can see the import of the illumination of the Holy Spirit for understanding and accepting truths in Scripture that had been previously antithetical to my understanding of God, myself, sin, and salvation. But do we need to turn regeneration into a construct of philosophy.
Fourth, and back to the point — if you end up calling human endeavors that are common “biblical,” do you lose sight of what the Bible really teaches and what it doesn’t teach? No matter what the motives may be for overreach — and I generally concede that they are good in Clouser and many neo-Calvinists’ cases — why don’t these smart guys ever see where extending the category of “biblical” beyond the Bible leads? Do historians really need to come to the rescue with specifics from church history like the effects of world-and-life viewism on the Christian Reformed Church where to be Reformed was all Kuyper and Bavinck and very little Dort or Belgic?
BTW, I fear the strained exegesis that this post is inviting.
Old Life 
What makes J. Gresham Machen biblical?
*****The “otherworldliness†of Christianity involves no withdrawal from the battle of this world; our Lord Himself, with His stupendous mission, lived in the midst of life’s throng and press. Plainly, then, the Christian man may not simplify his problem by withdrawing from the business of the world, but must learn to apply the principles of Jesus even to the complex problems of modern industrial life. At this point Christian teaching is in full accord with the modern liberal Church; the evangelical Christian is not true to his profession if he leaves his Christianity behind him on Monday morning. On the contrary, the whole of life, including business and all of social relations, must be made obedient to the law of love. The Christian man certainly should display no lack of interest in “applied Christianity.â€*****
—J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1923), 155.
LikeLike
“First, I’m not sure why we need a radically biblical understanding of theory making. Why can’t we have Christian liberty about how we make theories — as opposed to the theories we hold.”
How about the scientific theory that Adam is a myth?
“Second, part two, was Paul concerned about theory making? He interacted with philosophers but doesn’t seem to say much about how to do philosophy or the theories of the mind?”
Several of Paul’s statements seem to entail certain philosophical positions on the mind. Paul seems to presuppose some kind of dualism about man. Paul also assumes that his senses are reliable, and that testimony is a valid form of knowledge acquisition. There are dozens of other philosophical positions Paul presupposes or that are entailed by Paul’s statements. This makes them valid and it doesn’t matter that he didn’t pontificate about them.
“But do we need to turn regeneration into a construct of philosophy.”
First, your beliefs about God, sin, etc are *philosophical beliefs*. Second, his was the position of many scholastic Reformers, also Turretin, Vermigli, etc. See Michael Sudduth’s The Reformed Objection to Natural Theology.
“why don’t these smart guys ever see where extending the category of “biblical†beyond the Bible leads?”
That’s kind of the whole debate, isn’t it? Who says it’s “beyond the Bible.” Given what you say here, and in ASF, you come off as a guy who thinks that if the Bible doesn’t explicitly say something then it doesn’t teach it, presuppose it, entail it, or affirm it in any sense. Your baptist slip is showing (that’s precisely how they get children away from the font).
LikeLike
Right, AC, Machen is Keller’s homeboy.
LikeLike
Help needed.
I’m an old, illiterate dinosaur.
Could someone give me a set of characteristics of Neo-Cals and Paleo-Cals? Keep me in mind, am a simple and old fellow. In English comp courses, it’s “audience analysis.” Keep it simple for me.
Then, could someone tell me who are the Neo-Cals and Paleo-Cals?
On a hunch, as a High Church Anglican with the 1662 BCP, WCF, and 3FU, I suppose I’m a paleo-Cal. Just not up on the discussions.
Help needed.
LikeLike
Paul, how is my belief about God a philosophical belief? Why is it philosophical first? Why isn’t it Christian first? Your autonomy (vs. theonomy) slip is showing.
LikeLike
Philip, here’s a nice fat one to hit:
Neo-cals are Kloosterman and James A. K. Smith and the people who follow Dooyeweerd. It can range from Chuck Colson to James Skillen. What is operative is the idea of world and life view, and that everything proceeds upon fundamental beliefs or presuppositions. It’s a very philosophical conception of the way people think and act, with priority given to faith or lack of it.
Paleo-Cals (NTJ phrasing) are folks like VanDrunen, Horton, Clark, and T. D. Gordon. They are more comfortable with a distinction between natural law and special revelation, or between the two kingdoms.
The biggest difference as I see it is that for neo-Cals the kingdom is coming wherever those little presuppositions are active. That means, in culture, the arts, education, and politics (they don’t seem to care much for janitorial services as signs of the kingdom). Paleos believe that the kingdom of Christ is the visible church. God rules elsewhere. But his rule there is not redemptive. In culture, the arts and politics his rule is creational.
Selah.
LikeLike
Darryl, did I say it was “philosophy first?” (Assuming I even know what that means.)
Your belief in God both presupposes and entails dozens of philosophical beliefs. Try reading either a doctrine of God text or a phil. religion text.
Oliphint shows this in his Reasons for Faith.
Sudduth demonstrates this.
Many of the divines believed this.
Here’s a quick way to acquaint yourself with some of the recent literacture and moves:
http://www.amazon.com/Perspectives-Doctrine-God-Four-Views/dp/0805430601
Suffice it to say: views on Simplicity, eternity, time(lessness), omniscience, omnipotence, goodness, action, revelation, providence, creation, decree, trinitarian metaphysics (e.g., issues of identity, etc), the metaphsyics of personhood, etc., etc., etc.
The literature on this subject is so large and massive that I’m not even going to begin defending it and citing sources. It is simply *obvious* that one’s doctrine of God is also and at the same time a (set of) philosophical beliefs, even if these beliefs are implicit or entailed or presupposed. Our Confessional views of God commit us to several philosophical positions that are hotly contested in the philosophy of religion. The issues are very tough and require deep thought. You may naively go about holding your Confessional views and thinking all you have to say to justify them is that you “Confess” them, but you should thank the few Reformed analytic philosophers today who are guarding Reformed theology’s back door, which is subject to intence and strong attack, and which historical theology can do little to help—thought HT is vitally important and very necessary, just so you don’t think I’m taking a swipe.
LikeLike
Paul,
I agree that belief in God both presupposes and entails certain philosophical beliefs. There’s no doubt that they are intertwined. I assume that you believe that the philosophical committments that are embedded in orthodox theology are true. In other words, if adherence to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity entails a commitment to (or preuspposes) philosophical belief x; then x is a correct philosophical belief. So if the Westminster Standards are orthodox, and I adhere to the Standards, then to the extent that the Standards neccessarily entail or presuppose philosophical beliefs, I have a perfect philosophy, and so do you, and so does everyone else who sincerely confesses them.
If that’s true, then the fact of the matter is that the church doesn’t need philosophers. So long as the church’s theology is orthodox, her philosophy is perfect. So perhaps one of philosophical commitments inherent in Reformed theology is the idea that we don’t need philosophers and we don’t need to be philosophers. We need preachers. We need elders. We need catechisms. But we don’t need philosophers. Like you said, it’s a package deal. The philosophy is embedded in the theology, so if we get the theology right, we get the philosophy right. And if there’s a philosophical belief that isn’t embedded in our theology, then we don’t need it, and what one believes or doesn’t believe on that point is a matter of Christian liberty.
LikeLike
RL: Cute, but . . .
First: would you mind showing how your comment *follows*? I assume you can, right? If not, we have no reason to believe it. So, go ahead and derive your conclusion following derivation rules. I, for one, can’t see how you will get to the conclusion “we don’t need philosophers” from the premises you stated. Also, get the other conclusion “if there’s a philosophical belief that isn’t embeded in our theology, then we don’t need it.” I think that’s obviously false, but I’d love to see the argument for it.
Second: as I have blogged about before:
http://aporeticchristianity.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/christian-minimalist-and-maximalist/
Many of the philosophical presuppositions or entailment are either meta-level positions, or ambiguous between *specific instances* of the philosophy. For example, it seems to me that the Confession requires some kind of soul/body dualism (i.e., they soul can exist apart from the body, body and soul are not identical and the soul is not an epiphenomenon or an emergent property, e.g., “I have a soul as well as a body”). However, there are a few contenders here, viz., Cartesian dualism, holistic dualism, Thomistic dualism, emergent dualism, etc. So this leaves room for debate and for being wrong and for Christian liberty.
Third: philosophers will be able to *draw out* the Confesional implications, making explicit or “visible” some of the conceptual presuppositions and entailments of the Confession. Doing this requires the tools that seem uniquely possessed by philosophers.
Fourth: If x implies something false, then x is false (modus tollens). So anti-reformed will attack our philosophy as entailing the obviously false (case in point: attacks on Reformed views of freedom and moral responsibility given God’s determinative decree). The arguments that this implies something false are strong indeed, and to this date I am unaware of even *one* Reformed *theologian* who can deal adaquately with those objections (and to go with point two, the philosopher can work out the best model of compatibislism and moral responsibility here. Is it classical compatibilism, reasons-responsive semi-compatibilism, etc)?
Fifth: the apologetic task requires philosophers.
Sixth: 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.
Seventh: as I’ve said (and as you self-refutingly admitted), everyone does philosophy, so why not do it well. You think the vague notion that: “Well, since my theology is correct [btw, how do you know?], and since it entails at least one philosophical belief then that belief is correct, therefore I just must have a correct philosophical belief on the matter, even if I have no clue what it is!” is doing philosophy??? It’s clearly not epistemically virtuous, and it’s lazy. Knowledge is a good in itself. And being aware of positions your beliefs entail is being self-concious and epistemically responsible.
Eighth: the work of the analytic theologian is valuable and has moved many theological positions forward into much clearer expressions of those doctrines. As Oliver Crisp remarks: “the theological appropriation of the tools and methods of analytic philosophical theology for properly theological ends. It is really about bringing the work analytics have been doing into the theological fold. There is little that is new in this, apart from the fact that theologians are now engaged in work that is consciously appropriating the literature and methods of analytics for their own constructive theological work.”
Oliver Crisp notes that Alvin Plantinga “likes to joke that much of the most interesting theology of the past twenty years has been done by analytics, not by professional theologians.†Crisp goes on to say that he thinks
“there is more than a grain of truth to this. Analytics are often excoriated for being ‘ahistorical’. But in fact, I think that analytics involved in philosophical theology have shown increasing historical sensitivity borne out of a deep engagement with particular theologians, including the medievals, the magisterial reformers and some post-Reformation figures like Molina and Edwards. This engagement with the tradition and concern to draw upon historic Christian discussion of doctrine in order to argue for key dogmatic claims is, I think, a very welcome development, and one theologians may benefit from.”
Nonth: Crisp says it well in his book Divinity and Humanity,
“Theology should not be novel—or, at least, it should not be novel for the sake of novelty. To my mind, systematic theology should be faithful to Scripture and take serious the chorus of voices that constitute the Christian tradition. But this means making relevant to new audiences the Gospel that has been committed to the Church. Hence, this is an essay in traditional Christology, but without being hide-bound or antique. For faithfulness to a tradition is surely consistent with new ways of thinking about that tradition, and new tools with which to make sense of its relevance for today. (xiii)”
Tenth: Hoped that helped.
LikeLike
Paul, philosophy for philosophers is fine. It may even help theologians and pastors. But you think every Christian needs to be Hegelian — as in have a worldview. I don’t see that in Scripture or nature. Not everyone can be as smart as you.
LikeLike
Paul,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I’m pretty busy this and next week, so I can’t respond to your remarks in any meaningful way right now, and I didn’t want you to think your reply was ignored or unappreciated. I look forward to talking with you more in the future.
I didn’t know you had a website. I’ll check it out. Thanks.
LikeLike
RL, no problem, though I can’t promise I’ll be here. I usually don’t read this blog for a few days to a week or so, then I come in and snipe and stir things up 🙂
Darryl, I think every person, let along Christian, *has* a worldview (and Zrim has been telling me for months that 2kers don;t deny that everyone has a worldview, but I keep telling him to read you, maybe this time he’ll pay attention). Of course you don’t see the verse in scripture that says “Everyone must be Hegelian — as in have a worldview.” But you don’t see, “Baptise your kids either.” Also, you don’t see, “The senses are reliable,” either. But the Bible *presupposes* that they are.
Anyway, yes, philosophy will help theologians and pastors. Finally, what I’ve been after for a year of coming here has been admitted! I will now go and leave you to talk about all those interesting things you talk about. We could spend time discussing exactly how, and to what extent, but this is fine for now. See, I always knew a Mike Schmidt fan couldn’t be that off. 🙂
LikeLike
Convenient for you to pass over Clouser’s actual account of the way in which theorizing can be guided or directed by Christian presuppositions.
LikeLike
Baus, that is not the point. I have no trouble conceding that Clouser is working with Christian presuppositions as he interprets the Bible and Christianity. The question is whether the whole notion of presuppositions is a biblical construct or one derived from 19th century German philosophy.
I also get how you may derive the idea of presuppositions from Scripture. But the point is what happens to the phrase “radically biblical” when it is used to baptize views that are not necessarily derived from Scripture.
LikeLike
Paul, yes you did. “First, your beliefs about God, sin, etc are *philosophical beliefs*.”
LikeLike
Darryl, no I didn’t, and your quote doesn’t entail that. But maybe you can demonstrate that my claim means “philosophy is first.” Can you do it, Darryl? Or is this yet another of your baseless assertions that you fail to be able to argue. Guess what, Darryl, all your theological beliefs are also beliefs, does that mean I put “doxastics first?” I like CVD’s approach to you, I think I’ll try it too.
LikeLike
Darryl:
Thanks for the leads on Neo- and Paleo-Cals, including authors and leading ideas. It proves my status as a dinosaur.
Now, back to the history of Graf-Wellhausen, a history of chaos, circular reasons, dubious assumptions, and excessive credulity, but that is off topic.
And yes, enjoying richly the Anglican chants from St. Paul’s by day and night, along with the paleo-BCP…a dinosaur’s daily joy.
Regards and thanks,
Philip
LikeLike
Darryl,
you wrote:
“the point is what happens to the phrase “radically biblical†when it is used to baptize views that are not necessarily derived from Scripture.”
Right. I’m saying in reply to this point that in order to evaluate the idea of “radically biblical,” you might try considering what he is calling radically biblical, viz. the account he presents of the way in which theorizing can be guided or directed by Christian presuppositions.
You’re begging the question.
LikeLike
Baus, no offense but it seems that you are begging the question. What I’m asking is where you find in the Bible or in Christian theology the kind of attention to epistemology or foundations of knowledge that neo-Cal’s revel in. I’m not saying this is an illegitimate enterprise. What I’m questioning is whether it is of the nature or essence of Christianity when it has no direct expression in the biblical material, and no Christian confession talks about knowledge or how we know (they all assume that we know). So if a crisis in Western thought came along and certain Christian philosophers came along and tried to justify their intellectual standing by using idealism, fine. I tip my hat. But please don’t tell me that this was the way Christian thinkers always thought, or the way that all Christians must think.
So please tell me what is radically biblical when it comes to epistemology when — sorry Jeff — the Bible is silent about theories of knowledge.
LikeLike
Paul, you’re right, another of my baseless assertions. But why anyone would call Christian truths “philosophical beliefs” when no one else in the history of the Christian church treats them that way prior to the onslaught of neo-Calvinism, I just don’t know.
BTW, I hear CVD is hanging around at Kim Riddlebarger’s blog. You may want to try it. But I do wonder why critics of 2k keep picking their scabs.
LikeLike
DGH: So please tell me what is radically biblical when it comes to epistemology when — sorry Jeff — the Bible is silent about theories of knowledge.
Well, interesting that you mention this.
On the one hand, I sometimes encounter those who assert or insinuate that only foundationalist theories of knowledge are compatible with Christianity.
And of course, since I’m not a foundationalist per se, I take exception to that.
On the other, it would appear that some theories of knowledge — pure relativism, for example — really are out of court.
So Scripture has something to say about theories of knowledge: we cannot allow of theory of knowledge that denies that there is Truth.
But it does not say everything about theories of knowledge: foundationalism is not prescribed, for example.
So I would say, Not Silent.
LikeLike
“Paul, you’re right, another of my baseless assertions. But why anyone would call Christian truths “philosophical beliefs†when no one else in the history of the Christian church treats them that way prior to the onslaught of neo-Calvinism, I just don’t know.”
That’s just ignorant and false.
Moreover, if what I said it true then it matters not the time people actually started saying “some Christian beliefs are philosophical beliefs.” That’s what you have to deal with, not your petty quibbling about when someone might have said the phrase.
I mean, you sound just like the Roman Catholics and dispies I argue with that try to make the same points about Covenant Theology and justification by faith alone coupled with active and passive obedience. Why don’t we have any claims about infants being baptized until the 3rd or 4th centuries, and when we do it’s baptismal regeneration?
C’mon, Darryl. You’re better than this, no?
LikeLike
But, Paul, baptism is the second mark of the true church, not any theory of knowledge. Which means it’s a crime to withhold baptism from a covenant child, liberty on how we know what we confess. Which means that while it’s a good thing to understand it, it doesn’t finally matter why you’re presenting your kids at the font, just that you do it.
This will probably drive you nuts, but I happen to think there’s a lot to be said for acting first and then growing into an understanding of that action. Your outlook seems to be one that emphasizes the opposite direction, but if we waited for everyone to understand things first then we’d probably see less marriages and baptisms. And other stuff. Is that what you really want?
I know, more incoherence and irrationality.
LikeLike
Zrim, as if your comment has anything to do with what I said or my response to Darryl.
Anyway, I don’t have a problem of growing into understanding. I’m in the Anselmian tradition here. But the real question is, why don’t you ever bother to grow into understanding? Other than that, we see, again, that you had to make up a bunch of stuff about what I’m saying and what I believe to even hope to have some kind of a “response.” Hey, if that’s the way you like to roll, I guess you have “liberty,” dontcha?
LikeLike
Zrim, Paul and Darryl and Jeff,
You guys are all unflappable and highly persistent- all qualities I admire but unfortunately lack. I am learning how to stick to my theological convictions when the issues are clouded and uncertain because of what I read going on here all the time. Hopefully, I can also learn how to change my convictions when I am shown to be wrong. This site is a good place to practice these things. The heat often generated keeps my attention too. Great stuff!!
LikeLike
John,
Thanks for the kind words. I hope our discussion drives you to the Scripture to test whether these things are so.
LikeLike
John, I’m wrong more than I’m right. But I like to find out how I’m wrong by stubbornly debating a topic and bringing up all manner of objection to it, so that I can have cognitive rest about my wrongness. That’s how I learn, and so I’m using the people here as means to my end. It’s all about me, baby!
LikeLike
Paul,
Have you been reading Ayn Rand again? What John labels as unflappability and persistence, I regard as a stubborn refusal of anyone who has the gall to disagree with me to concede how right I am. Maybe when I have more time I can rejoin the legendary Old Life tussles.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Who is saying that theory is the essence of Christianity? Certainly not neocalvinism. This is a serious misreading.
you write:
“no Christian confession talks about knowledge or how we know (they all assume that we know).”
What do you mean? If the WCF employs presuppositions, then it seems legitimate to ask whether those presuppositions are Christian. If you’ve denied the possibility that there can be such things as Christian presuppositions because such a thing as ‘presupposition’ has “no direct expression in the biblical material,” then you’re up a creek, aren’t you?
you write:
“So please tell me what is radically biblical when it comes to epistemology when the Bible is silent about theories of knowledge.”
Again, in order to answer that question you’ll have to give consideration to what Clouser called radically biblical, viz. the account he presents of the way in which theorizing can be guided or directed by Christian presuppositions.
LikeLike
Paul (I thought you were leaving), I apologize for offending your philosophical identity. I believe philosophy is good and useful. But it does not make everything better by turning it into philosophy.
We have enough trouble teaching doctrine to believers, now we need to add philosophy? If that is better, I’m not going to do it.
LikeLike
Baus, I’m not saying that Clouser is saying that theory is of the essence of anything. (Why do neo-Cals have such trouble reading?) I am talking about what I’m talking about — what is radically biblical about presuppositions as the basis for thinking and actions. Plenty of non-Christian philosophers use such theories to account for knowledge and motivation. How can it be radically biblical? When people who don’t read the Bible employ it?
Furthermore, what is so hard about the proposition that no Christian confession talks about knowledge or philosophy? No confession talks about knowledge or philosophy. There is no explicit or direct mention of epistemology (in a philosophical sense) in the WCF. So how can it be a matter of radically biblical proportions?
I understand that Clouse distinguished between different kinds of biblical norms. My point is that he is not successful because I think he derives his understanding of theorizing from philosophy and not from special revelation or even theology. He might have employed regeneration or the work of the Spirit. But he does not.
In which case, my point was that Clouser is baptizing his account of theorizing as “radically biblical” when it is more Clouser’s own attempt to show the importance of faith. In my book, it is dangerous to call something biblical when it is not. And this seems to show the difficulty that neo-Cals always run into. Their logic is, if it is good, it must be biblical. That is because they are like fundamentalists and have no category between religious and anti-religious.
LikeLike
Paul, the point was to wonder how Christian truth became “philosophical beliefs,” unless the philosophers were allegedly privileged. You brought up paedobaptism to make your counter-point and seemed to suggest that the most effective way to counter attacks on our sacramentology is to turn to the philosophers. But a covenant parent who is tempted to withhold baptim from his/her covenant child needs an elder with doctrine way before a philosopher with knowledge. And s/he needs to behave way before s/he needs to understand.
Depsite what you seem to think, I don’t have any problem with understanding, nor any problem with understanding preceding behavior. But I have no problem either with behavior preceding understanding, since most of the Christian life is lived this way, or at least lived far more than admitted. If you’re being less ceremonial and more honest about “being wrong more than I am right,” this should make sense to you.
LikeLike
Jed, no clue what you’re getting at. I’m sure you’d apply your remarks to Darryl and Zrim since I have several times admitted I was wrong and they have never once done so. But anyway, you’re cool. Darryl Hart and Zrim like you, brown nose.
Darryl, can you quote me as ever saying or implying that “it makes everything better by turning it into philosophy.” No? Didn’t think so.
Zrim, you either don’t know what a philosophical belief is, or your dumb. I know the latter is false, hence . . . Anyway, you didn’t even get the point about paedobaptism and why it was brought up. Sad.
Finally, you just don’t seem to get that you have fully disqualified yourself from claiming you’re not a hater and despiser of reason and rationality when you claimed that you deny the rules of validity and soundness.
LikeLike
Paul, most of the things that I attribute to you are implications of your view. If you are going to say that Christian doctrines are philosophical beliefs, then you obviously think highly of philosophy. If you don’t think highly of philosophy, then please correct me. But if you do think so highly of philosophy, but not to the point of turning it into a norm for everyone in the church — remember worldview here — then go ahead and explain. (BTW, I guess you could not find where CVD is hiding.)
LikeLike
“But you think every Christian needs to be Hegelian — as in have a worldview. I don’t see that in Scripture or nature. Not everyone can be as smart as you.”
You do realize that statements like that only further the scurrilous rumor that you either don’t understand or aren’t overly bothered with accuracy when it comes to what neocalvinists mean by worldviews, namely their pretheoretical nature?
LikeLike
Paul, let’s pretend I’m dumb and you explain what a philosophical belief is. It might help you to know that the grinding and clunking you hear is me wondering in my dim little mind how a philosophial belief can possibly get us the Trinity or paedobaptism or total depravity or sola fide.
And how many times do I have to tell you: I’m a lover, not a hater.
LikeLike
Paul,
Simply injecting humor, the “it’s all about me” statement hit my funny bone – no attack intended. Didn’t Rand write about selfishness being a virtue? As for the brown-nose accusations – what can I say, I need Zrim and DGH to validate my otherwise miserable existence. Astute observations my friend. It makes me wonder whether you are some guy on the internet or if you are actually in my head.
Anyway, when time allows I jump back into these volleys, but for now I’ll let them gang up on you without me…happy fighting.
LikeLike
An observation: “Philosophy” might refer to the usual curriculum, or it might refer to “thinking deeply and carefully about a matter” (the Bill Davis definition).
If the former, then it’s clear that theology is more important to the church than, say, aesthetics or the theory of mind.
But if the latter, then it’s clear that theology is a subset of philosophy.
It’s all about definitions.
LikeLike
Jeff, there’s also the Apostle’s take:
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.â€
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
I know my mind is small and dim, but that sure sounds like philosophy, whatever the definition, pales in comparison to the gospel. Just an observation.
LikeLike
Russ, nice to hear from you. You’re a historian, so you’re reasonable. Worldview and the idea of pre-theoretical is a fairly late development in western thought, right? 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.
As for scurrilous rumors, when will neo-Cals ever own up to their woeful treatment of 2k folks? I’ve been called a fundy for close to thirty years whenever I talk about Machen among the Calvin, Dort, and even Covenant neo-Cal intelligentsia. I sure do hope you’re establishing different patterns at Providence.
LikeLike
Jeff, you put together worldview, philosophy, presuppositions, and transcendental method and you have a distinct wing of academic philosophizing. We don’t need to die the death of multi-perpsectivalism’s qualifications.
LikeLike
Jeff, Paul, Zrim, Darryl and Jed,
I have been out and about the last couple of days howling at the moon again but with my brother (not the evil, “responsible” Willow Creek brother but the maverick lost soul brother). I actually had some intimate and meaningful conversation with him so it was worth the time spent.
You guys are all definitely in my head. I find myself waking up in the morning with the dialog I have had here still going on in my mind. I even have dreams about it. I think the stuff and forum allowed here is better than the White Horse Inn. They sometimes come across as too nice and accommodating- would like to see them argue their differences more often in a heated and passionate manner.
Good to hear from you again Jed- I thought you let Paul get to you (I am trying to interject humor too); I have learned to appreciate certain aspects of Paul’s thinking- even to the extent of reviewing my logic, reasoning and arguing skills. I have the time to do it now so it is a kind of mental masturbation. It’s all about me, baby. I can sit, read, write and think all day- even to the point of letting my other duties and relationships take a back seat- not a good thing.
Plus, from what I know of Paul, I sense that I could go to him with any struggle I was having and he would at least listen and take the time (if he had it) to give me an objective ear and answer.
LikeLike
Although the answer and solution Paul may give may be a bit harsh and tend to piss you off. There I go again- giving a compliment or apology on the one hand and then taking it back on the other.
LikeLike
Darryl, given some of the historians I’ve known, I’m baffled by your conclusion that it leads to reasonableness. But on to the issue at hand, sure, worldview is a fairly late development. So is self-conscious theorizing, presuppositions, and the modern nation-state, but I don’t think this makes it anachronistic to think that Calvin’s view on, say, political and spiritual kingdoms might have some application to our modern predicament? I’m not aware of any neocalvinists under the assumption that Calvin articulated a method of worldview analysis, only that it arose within a Calvinist context. The “neo” must be there for some reason.
Have patience with the neo-Cals. We’re all a bunch a transformationalist liberals bringing redemption through fair-trade coffee, after all (or so I’ve read).
LikeLike
John, you’re forgiven. Now get some sleep. Here’s hoping you’re dreaming does not include Paul.
LikeLike
Darryl in a Pastoral mode- I like it; I need to hear that all the time (that I’m forgiven). Although I have a hard time determining when you are being serious and when you are being sarcastic.
That’s why I am a confessionalist and 2Ker- they know when to use the Law and when to use the Gospel; in theory anyways. That is not always easy to do in real life and practice.
LikeLike
This may be a bit late, but I would trace Dooyeweerd back to Kant rather then Hegel. This is also true of Cornelius Van Til, BTW.
LikeLike
Mr. Mann,
Care to elaborate? I realize this is a long shot, however I am currently running down some themes in mid-20th century Biblical Theology (esp. Eichrodt and Von Rad), and I am trying to locate their relationship to neo-Kantianism. It may or may not have some import into the 2k/Natural Theology discussion. If you have info on the relationship between Reformed theologians in the mid-20th cent. and neo-Kantianism I’d be interested.
LikeLike
John,
Me run from big, bad Paul? Nah, besides having a life and responsibilities outside this shooting range, I have been reading up on other issues as my previous response indicates. I am not sure if it will be fruitful for these 2k discussions, however if they are I’ll be sounding them off here and elsewhere. I am frankly interested to see if NL and 2k (or analogous concepts) are pertinent to some of the Biblical Theological discussions I follow.
I’ll be back at these dogfights as soon as I am able.
LikeLike
Someone tell me what BTW is- I’m guessing by the way.
LikeLike
John,
ding ding ding ding
LikeLike
Jed, Dooyeweerd’s magnum opus was A New Critique of Theoretical Thought. Kant wrote books with titles like Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason, and Critique of Judgement. The resemblance is not superficial. The so-called “transcendental” perspective of Dooyeweerd is an example of his borrowing Kant’s verbiage and, with modification, Kant’s ideas.
In Kant the subject imposes structure on phenomena rather than objects (and ideas) showing themselves to the subject. Yes, that’s a huge generalization. Now think of Creation, Fall, and Redemption as being a basic way to impose order on ideas. And, then, fast forward to presuppositionalism in which our pre-existing notions interpret ideas. Neither Dooyeweerd’s ground-motives (creation, fall, redemption) nor Van Til’s presuppositions exist if not for Kant’s so-called Copernican Revolution in philosophy.
LikeLike
Jed, “Michael Mann” is in quotes because it is a pseudonym. I appreciate the respectful “Mr. Mann” but you can call me Michael or MM or Mr. Miami Vice.
LikeLike
Jed,
You probably wouldn’t admit if he did get to you- although I do remember one post you had admitting that he was getting under your skin a bit. That reminds me of Darryl admitting that he was a cat lover on a interview he had with Scott Clark. I just ran across the following and have been waiting for the right opportunity to post it. It’s a push to be relevant here but I thought it was funny: I am going to have to copy and paste it in full because of the way it was formatted. It might not work but I will try:
Read all the way to end….
The Story of Adam & Eve’s Pets
Adam and Eve said, ‘Lord, when we were in the garden, you walked with us every day. Now we do not see you any more. We are lonesome here, and it is difficult for us to remember how much you love us.’
And God said, I will create a companion for you that will be with you and who will be a reflection of my love for you, so that you will love me even when you cannot see me. Regardless of how selfish or childish or unlovable you may be, this new companion will accept you as you are and will love you as I do, in spite of yourselves.’
And God created a new animal to be a companion for Adam and Eve. And it was a good animal and God was pleased.
And the new animal was pleased to be with Adam and Eve and he wagged his tail
And Adam said, ‘Lord, I have already named all the animals in the Kingdom and I cannot think of a name for this new animal.’
And God said, ‘I have created this new animal to be a reflection of my love for you, his name will be a reflection of my own name, and you will call him DOG.’
And Dog lived with Adam and Eve and was a companion to them and loved them. And they were comforted. And God was pleased. And Dog was content and wagged his tail.
After a while, it came to pass that an angel came to the Lord and said, ‘Lord, Adam and Eve have become filled with pride. They strut and preen like peacocks and they believe they are worthy of adoration. Dog has indeed taught them that they are loved, but perhaps too well.’
And God said, I will create for them a companion who will be with them and who will see them as they are. The companion will remind them of their limitations, so they will know that they are not always worthy of adoration.’
And God created CAT to be a companion to Adam and Eve.
And Cat would not obey them. And when Adam and Eve gazed into Cat’s eyes, they were reminded that they were not the supreme beings.
And Adam and Eve learned humility. And they were greatly improved.
And God was pleased…
And Dog was happy…
And…
Cat didn’t give a shit one way or the other…
LikeLike
The pictures didn’t copy- they are priceless and add greatly to the dialog. The cat is flipping the bird to Adam and Eve in the last picture.
LikeLike
Jed says: “As for the brown-nose accusations – what can I say, I need Zrim and DGH to validate my otherwise miserable existence. Astute observations my friend. It makes me wonder whether you are some guy on the internet or if you are actually in my head.”
That made me laugh
LikeLike
Paul says: “John, I’m wrong more than I’m right. But I like to find out how I’m wrong by stubbornly debating a topic and bringing up all manner of objection to it, so that I can have cognitive rest about my wrongness. That’s how I learn, and so I’m using the people here as means to my end. It’s all about me, baby!”
I kind of believe this I think. Not sure if you are playing head games half the time though. I have a tendency to think people who are more complex and street smart than me are always playing head games though. I have been scarred by my last two female relationships and have not quite recovered yet.
You do have a tendency to be a bit boorish at times and I sense you feel it is your mission to toughen wimpy Christians up along with promoting intellectual virtue. That’s easier for you then getting emotionally involved in others weaknesses. I do not require any fees for my psychological advice- your so fun to mess with too.
LikeLike
To put a bit of holiday cheer at Old life:
http://www.mesasoftware.com/merrychristmas.htm
LikeLike
Michael,
Mr. Mann was a reference to an old In Living Color sketch from about 15 years ago, and likely a connection that only I found funny; does Senior Miguel work? Or Miguel Hombre possibly?
All kidding aside, thank you. Your response was helpful. My question springs from some of my Biblical Theology reading lately. James Barr asserts that OT Theology (as well as 20th century theo. in general) were dominated by Barthian categories of revelation. This, according to Barr has come at the outright abandonment and derision of Natural Theology categories (or notions similar to/compatible with NT) within both Dogmatic and Biblical Theology. As Barr reflects, the dismissal of NT’s presence within the canon, especially in wisdom, narrative, and legal genres has harmed BT more than it has helped it. I won’t go too far into that discussion, but I saw some overlap in his Biblical Theology discussions and with the discussions that we have here.
Briefly though, what I found interesting is that Natural Theology/Law/Revelation in the 20th century was a hotly contested issue outside the Reformed tradition, and this had a lot to do with Barthian (and neo-Kantian) categories. Even for those, conservative, Reformed, or otherwise who disagreed with Barth’s repudiation of NT and his insistence of the object of all revelation being in Christ, the discussion was framed by neo-Kantian categories. However, Barr contends that NT (or its analogues) is present in Scripture, and that notions of “revelation” (e.g. natural, special) are not as monochromatic as Barthians or Barth’s detractors such as Bruener would make it out to be. Rather, under the general heading of “revelation” there are a whole host of phenomena used by God in disclosing himself. Some of these modes of disclosure such as those we see in, say wisdom literature, or historical narratives are not “special revelation” per se, rather these modes followed contours more akin to NT. For instance, that Solomon was David’s son, and the heir to the throne was not privileged information that could only be accessed by “special revelation”, rather this sort of narrative information could be ascertained by “general revelational” or “natural” categories. His discussion is quite expansive, and it is a very interesting reset of the issues on the table (at least to the time of Barr’s The Concept of Biblical Theology at the end of the 1990’s). I certainly don’t agree with all of Barr’s conclusions, but the issues he raises are very interesting to say the least.
As I see this play out in the 2k discussions, you can see many here and elsewhere who are very uncomfortable with notions of NL/NT at all. The fact that some in the Reformed camp repudiate NL/NT as a degradation to the privileged status of special revelation as delineated in Scripture might have more to do with issues arising post-Kant than have anything to do with the revelational categories of Scripture in themselves. This is why we end up with the never ending discussions on the extent that general/special revelation is meant to norm secular activities. But, I wonder if it would change the dynamic of the discussion if something like NL and NT is not an isolated phenomena in Scripture (like in Acts 17; Romans 1-3), but rather a frequent mode of divine disclosure in Scripture no less, even under what we would generally deem “Special Revelation”. If this is the case, then even if Scripture might norm secular activities (which I am not arguing it does), or even if Scripture informs such activities (which I am not comfortable in agreeing to without qualification), we still haven’t determined if this norming or informing is the product of “special” revelation, or if these are informed by more “natural” modes of revelation.
The fact that the Magesterial Reformers such as Calvin have no problem with NT/NL categories serves to reinforce Barr’s point that the revelatory categories fought over in the 20th century (and earlier) by conservatives, liberals, and neo-orthodox alike are more a product of the philosophical concerns of the day than they are with the revelatory categories as they appear in the biblical texts themselves. I have a lot more to run down before I draw any hard conclusions, suffice to say some of the discussions I have found in Barr’s writings has had some unexpected overlap with the discussions here on NL and 2k. Anyway, I have rambled further than I intended to, but hopefully I can scrounge up the time to post some discussions of the material I am currently reading over at my insignificant corner of the blogosphere.
LikeLike
“..hopefully I can scrounge up the time to post some discussions of the material I am currently reading..”
I’ll look forward to that, Jed.
LikeLike
Darryl,
you are utterly failing to deal with Clouser’s actual argument. You don’t even seem to be able to state clearly what he’s arguing for, let alone how he argues for it.
anyway, you write:
“…have no category between religious and anti-religious.”
such as the category of “religiously neutral” ?
LikeLike
Do a search: The First Scandal Adam and Eve.
LikeLike