Nelson Kloosterman has a blog and is using it to promote the thought of Abraham Kuyper among other topics neo-Calvinistic. No surprise there. Admittedly, Kuyper, the Reformed transformer-of-all-trades, master of none, was an impressive figure and blessed with much sound and wise counsel about a variety of matters with which contemporary believers wrestle. If Old Life appears to be critical of Kuyper, it stems as much from the unbecoming adoration he receives as it does from questions about the limits of world-and-live viewism.
And it is here that Kloosterman is useful to illustrate the problem. A few weeks back he quoted from Kuyper’s book on common grace (translated from the Dutch, of course) about the Genesis flood. Kloosterman’s point was that we need to make room for legitimate differences of opinion about such matters as the nature of the flood. The reason seems to be Kuyper. Since he did not follow conventional literalist interpretations about Genesis, so we need to make room for a diversity of perspectives on hot-button issues. One does wonder if this extends to Christian schools. Here’s the Kuyper quote:
An esteemed correspondent has objected to our position that the flood most probably did not cover the entire globe, and in connection with this, that predatory animals perhaps remained alive elsewhere in the world.
Let it be stated immediately that we attach very little importance to this dispute. Our only interest was to emphasize the significance of the protection of humanity against predatory animals.
For the rest, we note that Scripture itself says that “the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered” (Gen. 7:19), after which Scripture mentions the highest mountain, Mount Ararat. Nevertheless it is clear that numerous mountains were higher than Ararat.
In the second place, that not all the animals were destroyed appears from the fact that since the flood consisted of water, the fish could not have been killed, but rather received a rare and rich prize of human and animal corpses.
Third, numerous fossils have been found in the earth’s depths, fossils of animals that did not belong to this time period.
Fourth, it is indeed true that in Genesis 8:17 we read that all the animals had to leave the ark, but a literal interpretation of this presents us with insoluble difficulties. Suppose there were eight people, together with a small number of horses, cattle, camels, sheep, goats, etc., and you let loose two lions, two tigers, two hyenas, two snakes, two wolves, two bears, and many more. How could people have defended themselves at this point? What did those animals live on? Would not the entire small stock have been killed within a short time? Were you to say that Noah and his sons might have been animal tamers, or that God might have restrained the predatory animals at that point so that they didn’t attack people, we would certainly admit that these were possible, but precisely at that point justice is not being done to Genesis 9:5.
In any case, we are facing difficulties here that arise from the brevity of the narrative. One person can posit this, while another can posit that, and those opinions should be permitted. But Genesis 8 and 9 are revealed to us not to have a dispute about them. The main point here involves God’s ordinances given to the new human race.
But then along comes another quote from Kuyper, supplied by Kloosterman, which calls for a distinctly Christian contribution to questions about science and faith. Again from the work on common grace, again translated from the Dutch:
The life of particular grace does not stand by itself, but has been placed by God amid the life of common grace. Since Holy Scripture is definitely not limited to opening up for us the way of salvation, but has been given also to enrich common grace with new light, for those who confess that Word not to make this higher light to shine upon the arena of science, which belongs to the field of common grace, constitutes deficient devotion to duty.
What is hard to understand is that many who attempt to follow Scripture on science, and so regard Genesis as more authoritative than the findings of geology, would not be friendly to Kuyper’s views on the flood. I mean, if we are to use special revelation to interpret general revelation when it comes to politics and society, why not when it comes to geology and biology? And yet, Kloosterman regularly denounces 2k for not letting Scripture be the norm for interpreting natural law.
I am struggling to find the coherence in Dr. K’s view, except that it all seems to go back to Kuyper.
Old Life 
Darryl, good catch. That is a very intriguing contrast.
Do you think that special revelation is authoritative for interpreting geology and biology?
LikeLike
Wes, you might understand why I think this is a loaded question. You might also suspect my answer if I hedge. But let me say this much — I believe the universe is older than 4004 BC. The reason in part stems from the speed of light and the discovery of stars. So I believe the Bible is always authoritative on what it reveals. The issue repeatedly before the church is what the Bible reveals. Just this morning I was reading the First Helvetic Confession which says that the Bible strictly reveals the gospel. That would not suggest geology or biology, and none of the Reformed confessions take a stand on details of biology other than the supernatural creation of our first parents. So I guess this is a dodgy answer.
LikeLike
Wes and Darryl, The Bible uses the phrase, re. Our Lord Jesus, being there “before TIME began”! What could be BEFORE time but more time? You know where to find it! Tell me what THAT is all about!
LikeLike
What strikes me in the 2nd citation is how Kloosterman (in the original post) prefaces it as the “ipsissima verba” Kuyper. A bit scary, even for a tradition that reveres her leaders with the name dominee.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
What does “in the space of six days” mean in WCF 4.1 other than “in the space of six days”?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Since I ought to comment slightly on the OP I have some reservations about Kuyper and am not a fan of his.
LikeLike
Ben, since when do we refer to time as 3 dimensional? Space means height, depth, width.
But even if it is the 17th c. way of talking about time, the importance of the way the confession was received, whether in 1729, of 1788, or 1936 is the issue for contemporary communions. When the OPC adopted the Confession in 1936 the communion allowed for interpretations that would interpret space differently from 1646.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Do you have any sources to show the Divines had “dimension” in mind by using the word “space”? I believe “space of 6 days” was used specifically to differentiate between the WCF and views like the Augustine’s.
LikeLike
*that of Augustine’s.
LikeLike
Ben,
The WCF states that “It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.”
The divines attributed the creation of all things invisible, as well as visible, to the space
of six days. Does this mean they believed that the domain of heaven, angels, demons, etc… were all created in the same 24 hour period as light in day 1 of Genesis? And is that what one needs to believe to truly affirm the WCF on creation?
LikeLike
Ben, no. I do have a pretty good idea that no one in the OPC believed in a young earth until after the rise of scientific creationism in the 1950s.
LikeLike
Does this mean we are to understand the 4th commandment in an analogous way so that our resting one day in seven should mean one day in several hundred, thousand, or million, since that is most likely what God did in Genesis?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
The analysis of Kuyper and Kloosterman was very helpful, thank you.
LikeLike
Todd: the confession says “the world, and all things therein” were created in 6 days. A little sneaky to expand this to everything to make your point. But even if it were referring to everything, why would that be a problem?
LikeLike
B and Benjamin,
I think it is important that we pay some attention to what the Gen 1 account was saying in it’s original context. I know I am guilty of recommending these guys ad nauseum, but when it comes to conservative genesis scholarship they are solid and shouldn’t be dismissed lightly.
The emphasis of Gen 1 doesn’t quite fit with many of the current debates over YEC, OEC, and TE. It is less concerned with the physical manufacture of the cosmos, and more concerned with the establishment of the created realm as the cosmic temple where God takes his repose, and man serves him as priest-kings. Man must care for the created realm as kingly stewards administrating the cultivation of creation and protecting creation in a way that resembles a priests care for the temple as sacred space dedicated to God. Sabbath rest points to the God who has taken residence in the cosmic temple and rules it from his heavenly throne. In this Sabbatarian cycle man was made to cultivate earthly realities in accord with heavenly ones.
There are salvific and eschatalogical currents in the Genesis 1 narrative as well. The point is the framing of the ethical and spiritual parameters in which man would care for physical creation under the rule of God. This is more or less how ancient Israel would have understood the Gen. 1 sequence, as it became a template of sorts for how Israel would operate in the Promised Land. Questions of the scientific nature and literality of Gen 1 would not have entered the pre-scientific minds of ancient Israelites.
I think there are ways in which WCF 4.1 can be viewed with some flexibility. The nature of the days is one of the hardest questions in Genesis, but it most certainly follows the weekly structure. I think this has more ecclesiastical implications than it does scientific, but that’s just me.
The bigger issue isn’t the nature of the days in Gen 1, I would argue for latitude here. The issue in Genesis studies as it transects our confession is the historicity of Genesis 2. It seems that we give up much more in granting latitude here. The historicity of Adam as the federal head of humanity is fundamental to our theological system and any elasticity in theories of cosmic origins must properly account for Adam. IMO Warfield navigated this well, arguing for a miraculous creation of Adam and Eve, even where he allowed some credence to evolution.
LikeLike
Somehow my reccomendations got deleted out when I was editing – Walton & Waltke are 2 that I look to in the Genesis debates.
LikeLike
DGH wrote: if we are to use special revelation to interpret general revelation when it comes to politics and society, why not when it comes to geology and biology? And yet, Kloosterman regularly denounces 2k for not letting Scripture be the norm for interpreting natural law.
I think this is the nub (or is it hub?) of Hart’s post, i.e. the inconsistent Biblical arguments of the “anti-2K-ers.” As it is said, one can’t have it both ways. Scripture speaks clearly where it intends to do so, but often not as we want.
Good post D. Hart.
LikeLike
I think it’s “crux,” Jack, and bingo: why the rules about general and special revelation tend to shift on facets of creation remains a mystery. Though I suspect it depends on which facet has the world’s attention on any given day.
LikeLike
Andrew,
Good point, I read invisible to include angels, etc…What would the divines mean by invisible; what in this world is invisible? Unless they mean laws of gravity, etc…Is that what you think by the term “invisible?” But there were some at the Assembly who held that the first three days were not 24 hour days because the sun was not created until the fourth day. Either way the Presbyterians have always seen a non-literal six day view as within the bounds of the system of doctine of the WCF. As Darryl said, at WTS Philly years ago it was rare to find any six-dayer.
LikeLike
The professors of WTS Philly are often called upon to defend non 24 hour views of Genesis 1.
I am willing to be corrected, but it seems like the negative effects of Darwinism and evolution were not widely recognized and refuted until the past 50-75 years.
When WTS was founded there were more serious problems to refute such as the denial of virgin birth of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, miracles, substitutionary atonement, and the inerrancy of Scripture…to name a few.
I struggle to find a reformer who did not take a 24 hour day view of Genesis 1 as a given. When the first 3 days may have been questioned by the divines, a so called “young earth” view was still assumed. Am I wrong with this?
It still seems a little odd to go allegorical on Genesis 1, Historical on the flood (Are people here questioning a worldwide flood?), than 24 hour day for the 4th commandment. If the hermeneutic of latitude or allegory is applied to Genesis 1, why not with the rest of Genesis? Why not with the rest of Moses’ writings, the OT, the NT? Couldn’t Rob Bell claim to be applying latitude and allegory with passages on Hell and limited atonement?
It always seems to me that consistency with “latitude” and allegory on Genesis 1 leads to latitude on the rest of Scripture in places we would all agree are outside of Orthodoxy.
LikeLike
B,
Non-literal doesn’t necessarily mean allegorical or non-historical. The word “day” in Genesis 1&2 is actually used in four different ways, only one meaning 24 hour. You may want to check out my paper at http://rropc.org/papers/debate_genesis_days.html.
Also note this quote from Machen:
The meaning of “day” in Gen 1 has been debated in the church at least since the days of Augustine. The literary form of the passage in its relation to other scriptures is important for its interpretation. Responsible Reformed theologians have differed as to whether Gen 1 teaches a young earth or allows for an old earth. While one of these interpretations must be mistaken, we believe that either position can be held by faithful Reformed people.
(J. Gresham Machen “The Christian View of Man,” pg. 115)
LikeLike
Todd,
I appreciate the link to your paper. I too agree that either position can be held provided certain items such as ex-nihilo are not discarded. My concerns remain about what seems to be jumps in interpretation and hermeneutics for different parts of Genesis.
It was my intention to not use the term “non-literal” as all Scripture is “literally” interpreted. If allegory is the way a text should be understood, than the literal interpretation is allegory. This is where our Dispensational friends seem to try to “convince” us, but it is a poor understanding of interpretation…and reading in general.
I have reservations about the effects of the non-24 day views on the perspicuity of Scripture. I never want to try and dumb down the understanding of Scripture, but I have to say that the complexity of Reformed non-24 hour day views is somewhat mind boggling. If you had never read the Bible before and you read chapter 1 and asked someone for the meaning…after you were given the view presented in your paper…would you read chapter 2?
It has always seemed funny to me that plants, grass, etc…can not survive without water or sun for 3 days. This idea seems to push heavily for a 24 hour day view. If each day of Genesis 1 is 24 hours, the order works. If each day is thousands or millions of days/years, the timeline is confusing. Additionally, God created light on the first day. Just because this was not the Sun, why could it not have been another source life giving light? It seems in the new heavens and the new earth, the lamb will be all the light…and not the Sun. Will we be able to live? I mean this as a friendly challenge.
I do appreciate your comments and your taking the time to discuss these topics. Also, I appreciate the summary of the reformer’s positions in your paper. My personal opinion on the founders of WTS and the fathers of the OPC was expressed above and I in no way think less of them because of their positions on Genesis 1 in contrast to my own.
LikeLike
B, have you considered the Benjamin Warfield was sympathetic to evolution (Sorry, Gary) and also orthodox (in my view, sorry again Gary)? The point then is that one’s view of the days of Genesis does not necessarily drive one’s theology.
As for the complexity of the non-literal view, have you ever looked at a chart of Hebrew cosmology? You’d never venture a landing on the moon if you followed that understanding of the cosmos.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
I have not looked at a chart of Hebrew cosmology, I will have to do that at some point.
Also, I am very thankful that one’s view of Genesis does not always drive, or in my opinion remain consistent, with one’s theology. I am also thankful for the members of a certain religion who live among us and do not practice consistently with the teachings of their prophet.
I am not trying to relate anyone to a Muslim, I am just pointing out that inconsistencies are often very welcomed 🙂
Benjamin Warfield will now have to be added to my stack of books to read. Would you mind recommending a book or books where Warfield presents his views on Creation/Genesis? Thank you.
LikeLike
Warfield’s views concerning evolution have come under closer scrutiny.
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/35-2/b-b-warfield-on-creation-and-evolution
LikeLike
Andrew,
‘If you had never read the Bible before and you read chapter 1 and asked someone for the meaning…after you were given the view presented in your paper…would you read chapter 2?”
I’m not sure what you mean by “would you read chapter 2?” The common complaint against a non-literal 24 hour view is that it takes away from the average Christian reading and understanding what seems to be the plain meaning of the passage. Is that your concern in your question? But even a plain, first time reading yields difficult questions that a young earth 24 hour interpretation does not necessarily answer, such as:
Why did God make a source of light the first three days and then discard that source, whatever that source was?
What are there so many different meanings of the word “day” in the first two chapters?
Why in 2:5 does it say there was no vegetation because God had not caused it to rain? How does that fit into a literal 6 day view?
Is the 7th day a 24 hour day, or figurative of eternity? If the 7th day is not a literal 24 hour day, how does that affect our understanding of the other six days?
Andrew, I guess I am not overly worried about the concern that if the days are not 24 hour, average people cannot read and understand the days of Genesis in Gen 1 from an initital, plain reading, because modern American Christians are not exactly known for their careful study of Scritpure anyway, or their need for help from those gifted to teach, and they tend to approach Genesis with certain scientific questions that the text is not interested in answering. There are just some apsects of Scripture that do not touch on the important doctrines of the faith that take more intensive study and help to understand, which is what the WCF affirms in WCF I:7
LikeLike
Ben, thanks for the link. But I hardly think this gives support for a young-earth six literal day view. That outlook is a latecomer. Even William Jennings Bryan was a day-age man who reconciled himself to the findings of geology.
And this is the point about Warfield. Would that all Reformed Protestants were as discerning and knowledgeable about science, or willing to try to harmonize the two books. Today it seems that biblicism rules with people willing to smugly reject the findings of science even while when sick hoping that science will perform its miracles.
LikeLike
Darryl, Thanks for coming out of the closet on the origins discussion. It’s tempting to get into the fray on that issue. I would recommend Noll’s The Princeton Theology, Noll and Livingstone’s Warfield on Science and Scripture, and Livingstone’s Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders as starting points for those interested in Warfield’s views. Noll’s books are largely reprints of relevant Warfield articles.
But to get to the main point. The incoherence in Kuyper is one of your own making. I’ve become convinced that you all are making a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to R2K vs. neo-Calvinism. Key to neo-Calvinism is both common grace and sphere sovereignty. In Two Kingdom language these show up as the common sphere and the spirituality of the church. Kuyper’s reticence to let the Bible inform or even confute the findings of science results from both principles. The natural sciences are part of the common sphere and successful inquiry into the workings of Creation is available to all–regenerate and not. The church qua church has no competence to judge the science of scientists–an implication of sphere sovereignty and the spirituality of the church.
Kloosterman’s second Kuyper quote is not inconsistent with the first if it understood in terms of broad principles. This would be antithesis in the neo-Calvinist lingo. For example, the Bible clearly teaches that God is immanent in Creation (as well as transcendent) and sovereignly upholds and governs it by his decrees and providence. This “light” from scripture rules out materialism. Now I would be quick to assert that materialism is a philosophical/religious position and not a scientific one, but that distinction appears lost on many modern scientists. I found nothing in Van Drunen’s Living in God’s Two KIngdoms to suggest that Christians in the common sphere ought to jettison the principles and implications of Christian theology when doing their work. It seems to me he advocated such. Kuyper is saying little more than that in my opinion.
I think this perspective is similar to what you seem to be articulating. I.e. the sufficiency of scripture does not extend beyond the gospel. Check out the second essay in the short piece I wrote for tenure review while at Calvin on the role of the Bible in the work of the scientist. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Physical%20Science/Gray1999.html
It may well be the case that modern practioners of neo-Calvinism are guilty of the crimes you suggest. Common grace and all-of-life “Reformed” worldview without sphere sovereignty and antithesis easily turn into social gospelism and the church meddling in all sorts of things that it should not. Even in neo-Calvinism, social justice is not the work of the church–it’s the work of the civil magistrate (and Christians and non-Christians can partner for justice on all sorts of issues–notice I said “Christians” and not “the church”). Here’s a link to a post about some issues in the CRCNA–http://network.crcna.org/forums/discussion-networks/synodical-reports/whatever-happened-sphere-sovereignty
I would recommend John Bolt’s essay in the recently published translation of Kuyper’s Our Worship. Here Bolt criticizes (and finds an ally in Kuyper) those who want to import “kingdom concerns” (I.e. social justice issues) into Sunday worship.
LikeLike
Terry, first I’m guilty of making a mountain out of a molehill, and then you concede that neo-Calvinists are guilty of the crimes I allege. Your post at the crcna network would seem to confirm my laments about neo-Calvinism. In which case, the problem may be with “conservatives” like Kloosterman who have a hero-crush on Kuyper and can’t think of ways to tame worldviewism.
LikeLike
I’m always quick to distinguish between principle and practice. You seem to confuse them. The crimes are NOT necessary outcomes of the theological perspective, but misapplications. I guess the URC will be another historical testbed.
LikeLike
Terry, but I think the principle of neo-Calvinism is flawed and results in an erroneous practice. And the flaw in theory, as David VanDrunen shows, is a denial of the distinction between Christ’s offices as creator and mediator. You may disagree on this distinction, but a failure to make it does seem to be the intellectual factor that leads neo-Calvinism into its excesses.
LikeLike
Terry, I think you’re onto something about the URC. From my experience here in Little Geneva, in important ways the URC can be on the same neo- and culturally-Reformed trajectory as the CRC it shook off. Is a male neo-Calvinism really better than an egalitarian one? Maybe, but not by much.
LikeLike
You’re missing my point. You can distinguish between Christ’s offices as Creator and Mediator and still be a neo-Calvinist. In fact, properly acknowledging sphere sovereignty does properly distinguish between the two. I can’t help it if folks apply the theology inconsistently. What VanDrunen does, that is an error in my opinion, is to negate the whole creation mandate with the work of the mediator. So in point of fact, he’s the one denying the distinction when he claims that Christ fulfilled the Creation mandate and that there is no Creational work remaining. In my reading of scripture, especially in the OT prophets, the creational enterprise continues on, albeit in realized eschatological glory, in the life to come.
LikeLike
Terry, to say that Christ fuflfilled the creation mandate is not to say that there is no creational work to be done (I don’t think DVD actually says that). That’s like saying that because he fulfilled the moral law there is no law to be followed. The point in saying he fulfilled both the creation mandate and the moral law is to say that our efforts at both have changed in perspective, not been eliminated.
LikeLike
Terry, you’re making my point. Sphere sovereignty is no barrier to a flawed understanding of the creation mandate after the fall. As long as neo-Calvinists are going to blur the creation mandate into redemptive directions, all the sphere-distinctions in the world are not going to stop Kuyperians from turning biology into kingdom work. Plus, VanDrunen is pretty convincing on the nature of the Noahic Covenant as the basis for cultural activities after the fall. Again, a clean distinction between redemption and providence is key (even though redemption and providence play out in all the spheres).
LikeLike
Zrim, exactly! That’s what neo-Calvinists say.
Darryl, I see that the word “kingdom” is the bugaboo. We probably won’t come to agreement on this. Kingdom is all creation, the entire sphere of the sovereignty of Christ. The church is a subset of the kingdom, where Christ’s sovereignty is recognized. I really don’t mind your squeamishness with respect to the word redemptive. But I think the critique of saying that we participate in the work of redemption is overstated. Sanctification is synergistic, is it not? Cultural activity done by Christians is part of sanctification, is it not?
After reading VanDrunen I found it quite curious that such hard core confessionalists as you all could discover something new. VanDrunen’s rooting culture in the Noahic Covenant rather than Creation is a novelty as far as I can tell. Can you show me anywhere in the Reformed confession corpus where VanDrunen’s point about the Noahic Covenant is made?
LikeLike
Terry, sanctification is the work of God’s free grace whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God . . . From the Shorter Catechism. That doesn’t sound synergistic even if it is a passive construction — passive for a reason.
Perhaps you’ve heard of Meredith Kline. I seem to recall that you like his work on the framework for Gen. 1. He does wonderful things with Noah.
LikeLike
But, Terry, if that exactly what neo-Calvinists say then what gives with all the talk of redeeming society? Are they listening to themselves? To say the church is redeeming society is the ecclesiological version of the soteriological error that we are justifying (or sanctifying ourselves: sanctification is as monergistic as justification). Redemption is God’s work alone, not ours. Our work, whether moral or creational, is merely in response to what has been done on our behalf. “What” we do along with unbelievers in the creation mandate looks the same, but it’s the “why” that is different. Which should actually put the sort of damper on expectations that doesn’t bubble up with “redeeming culture.” Maybe “cultivating earth’ is more reasonable?
LikeLike
Let go and let God, eh?
I didn’t know the works of M.G. Kline were part of the Reformed confessional corpus.
TG
LikeLike
“It must be remembered that while the subject is passive with respect to that divine act of grace whereby he is regenerated, after he is regenerated he cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of sanctification. The Holy Ghost gives the grace, and prompts and directs in its exercise, and the soul exercises it. Thus while sanctification is a grace, it is also a duty; and the soul is both bound and encouraged to use with diligence, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, all the means for its spiritual renovation, and to form those habits resisting evil and of right action in which sanctification so largely consists.”
A.A. Hodge Commentary on the Westmister Confession of Faith, Chapter 13
Sounds synergistic to me. Monergistic sanctification is known as quietism. Didn’t know you guys had it in you.
LikeLike
Terry, and Hodge is part of the confessional corpus? But WCF 23, as in confessional corpus, sounds pretty passive:
I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection,by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
As far as the quietism and implied antinomian accusation, don’t you know that the Christian life can be summed up in one word: obedience. As in the whole third section of the HC. When was the last time you heard a gnostic undernomian appeal to a confession and catechism?
LikeLike
Zrim,
Clasically, Reformed Theology doesn’t deny a “cooperative” element to sanctification. If it was *all* God, not that your citing of the Confession implies that God is sinful, since the *war* is fought between the old man and the new man. You do have to fight the war, but God works in you to will and to want, and gives you all the gifts need to win the war. Notice that *the regenerate part* “overcomes,” and “wins” the war. God isn’t regenerate. God ensures you will win, and God gives you everything you need to win. But you are really doing things. That’s why Paul says *I* beat my body and make it my slave. You need to make room for compatibilistic free actions here, and I’m not saying you’d deny what I just wrote, just checking.
LikeLike
Notice, Zrim, the confessional corpus
Q. 77. Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?
A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued: the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.
Since syngergism is a technical theological word with meaning (more than “two workers”), I wouldn’t want to call sanctification synergistic, but it’s certainly not passive; at least, not in the sense that justification is passive. Sanctification is subduing sin, this is done via the *means* of your *fighting* the “war” (again, confessional language). If *you’re* not fighting, you’re not subduing you’re not being sanctified.
LikeLike
Zrim, who is obeying in the obedience you mention? God or the believer? Obedience enabled by God’s grace and the Holy Spirit’s prompting is the obedience of the believer who cooperates with this divine work. We (not God) attend to the means of grace in Word, sacrament, and prayer. We are commanded to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. We’re getting a bit far from the main point but if I can’t convince you that you cooperate with God in your personal sanctification, then there’s little hope of convincing you that we cooperate with God in broader kingdom efforts. Are the commands of scripture related at all to sanctification?
LikeLike
Isn’t the reference of “the practice of true holiness” to the believer’s practice?
I think most Reformed folk would say that faith and repentance also involve cooperation. Election, no. Effectual calling and regeneration, no. Justification, no. Adoption, no. Union with Christ, no. Definitive sanctfication, no. But, faith, repentance, and progressive sanctification all involve the regenerate believers action (cooperation). Indeed, only the regenerated person who is stirred up and enlivened and powered by the Holy Spirit can do such things, but it is the believer doing those things.
LikeLike
Terry, two things just for clarity here.
I am assuming we agree that while faith is a response of the believer it is also a gift of God graciously bestowed on his children. If that is the case, would you also agree that the obedience involved in sanctification is also a gift graciously bestowed upon the believer?
Also, I have been reading Bahnsen’s “Theonomy In Christians Ethics”, I am worried by his presentation of sanctification. Rushdoony said plainly that we are “sanctified by works” in the forward, and Bahnsen seems to maintain a similar emphasis on the necessity of works in order to accomplish sanctification. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems like your taking a similar position? Am I misunderstanding your emphasis? I am very leery of anyone who puts obedience as the cause of sanctification and not the fruit of sanctification. It has always seemed most natural to understand sanctification in light of the work of God that naturally brings forth our obedience. That also seems to be the most natural understanding of the order given by Q77, “in sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof”. The spirit is the one to give us the grace, and bring forth obedience.
Sorry if I am misunderstanding you, just trying to clarify what you’re saying.
LikeLike
Terry, the way I understand it the law is the structure of our sanctification and the Spirit is its power. So I understand it is we who are obeying, but to follow on John Knox’s point above about obedience finally owing to God, and as Belgic 24 states it concerning sanctification: “Yet we do not wish to deny that God rewards good works — but it is by his grace that he crowns his gifts.” But I also do find it an odd assertion that God doesn’t attend his means of grace, etc.
And as far as bringing this back to the point, I happen to think you’re right that there is a parallel between construals of sanctification and how one relates to the wider world. It seems like where there is synergistic notions of personal sanctification there one also finds the idea that we are redeeming creation. It sort of makes sense: if one thinks he has some hand in sanctifying the imago Dei (himself) then what keeps him from thinking he has a hand in redeeming the rest of creation? I don’t know, but I wonder if neo’s ever think about the fact that only what is created in the image and likeness of God can be said to be sanctified. And if it’s true that God alone sanctifies the imago Dei then it seems to follow that God alone will redeem the rest of creation when he’s good and ready.
LikeLike
I don’t sanctify myself. Where that came from I have no idea. Typical of the lack of reading skills around here. I did say that my regenerate self cooperates with God in the process.
Of course, God does his part in the means of grace. But we have to do our attending as well. Agreed?
Eschatology is inaugurated with the coming of Jesus and outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The age to come has already begun. That, I think, is the heartbeat of neo-Calvinism. We are experiencing the firstfruits of the age to come. God is already “good and ready”. I am more and more convinced that eschatology is the real difference between R2K and neo-Calvinism. It seems to me that R2K stress the not yet over against the already compared to what scripture does.
LikeLike
Knock me over with a feather!
What Terry is saying here–that there is an aspect of our sanctification, unlike our justification or adoption (which are forensic, declarative acts) in which we are not passive (as we are in regeneration, or intial sanctification)–is standard Reformed fare. It has nothing whatsoever to do intrinsically with neo-Calvinism or a Reformed approach vs. a Presbyterian one. It is simply bread and butter Reformed (and Presbyterian)theology. I am astounded that Westminster Confessionalists are having trouble with the notion that we–by God’s grace–are active in progressive sanctification; surely we work out at the same time that God works in (Phil 2: 12-13).
I do not know of a single respected Reformed writer who would teach that the believer is purely passive in sanctfication (though they do not deny passive aspects of such). Surely, somebody is missing something here.
LikeLike
Alan, quite agreed that we work externally while God works inwardly. I don’t know how characterizing the Christian life as (grateful) obedience implies a denial of activity. But is it really so astonishing to say that when it comes to being sanctified the lion’s share of the work is God’s? If that’s an error then I’d rather err on the side of divine work than human effort.
Terry, I agree that eschatology figures strongly in distinguishing between neo- and paleo-Calvinism. The former tends to be post and the latter amil. But it seems to me the latter also affirms the already in the already-not yet scheme. It has been inaugurated at the cross, but the subsequent activity is within the imago Dei only and not wider creation. The rest of creation is waiting and groaning for the sons of God to be revealed because it knows that once that happens it will then be made new (just as it was plunged into futility because of the sin of man). First things first. But I think what characterizes neo-Calvinism is an impatience with the order of these things.
LikeLike
Zrim, I think you are mistaken. Most neo-Cals are amil (including myself). Certainly, theonomists tend to be post-mil, but theonomists and neo-Calvinists are different. You R2K folks sloppily lump them together. VanDrunnen did this in the intro to Living in God’s Two Kingdoms where he rather indiscriminately put neo-Cals, theonomists, and Emergent church folks all in the same box. Ridiculous! I would probably argue that neo-Calvinists have more common ground with R2K than with theonomists and emergent church advocates, even on the key issues that appear to divide us.
LikeLike
Alan, thanks for the confirmation. I was beginning to wonder whether I had strayed from the straight and narrow.
LikeLike
My address, unless otherwise noted, is always to the owner of the blog.
It was he who averred that we are passive in sanctifcation. Others have clarified that we are not, speaking about the obedience–our obedience–that is the expression of the gratitude that flows from the grace that we receive because of our guilt. I have no problem with that and agree entirely with it.
I have a problem with a comeback to Terry that asserts that we are passive, simpliciter, in our sanctification. Such a response needs correction.
LikeLike
Alan, does self-righteousness also knock you over? No one here as near as I can tell is denying that sanctification involves working out our salvation with fear and trembling. Maybe the fear and trembling is why the divines put sanctification in a passive construction. But when we start to look at our own effort in sanctification, for some reason fear and trembling generally leave and pride and high-fiving fill the void. As long as we look at good works as filthy rags, we should be okay.
LikeLike
Terry, has it ever occurred to you that you are the odd neo-Calvinist? I mean, how many neo-Cal’s actually read Kline?
LikeLike
Terry, did you miss the word “tend” in my last response to you, as in neo’s tend to be posties? But if most neo’s are amil I wonder why I could swing a dead cat (sorry, Darryl) in neo Little Geneva and likely hit more posties than amils. And if you want to retain the marks of a paleo-Calvinist and call yourself neo-Calvinst, ok. I really don’t understand why. I wonder what you mean by “neo.”
LikeLike
Darryl, I learned my neo-Calvinism at the feet of Old Westminster and Old Princeton. And “old” Westminister in California (before the R2K take-over). We all read Kline. Back in the day before you and VanDrunen got on your R2K kick most OPC ministers and theologians would self-identify as neo-Calvinists. While R2K may not be the new kid on the block, R2K in the OPC (and in the URC) is certainly the new kid on the block. I don’t really expect anyone on this list to give a hearty “amen” to that or to even to confirm my thinking here.
There’s a classic WTJ piece by Gaffin on the OPC as the genius fusion between the Dutch continental Reformed and Old Princeton. R.B. Kuiper, C. Van Til, G. Vos, Ned Stonehouse, and more were all key influences in the OPC. Of course, it seems that you want to purify the OPC of any influence but Machen and will paint her history with brushes that view any other influence as deformation. Even John Murray appears to be “shamed” these days because of the incipient Shepherdism you can find there. (As much as I like your histories, I find them disturbingly unobjective–being the Reformed epistemologist and quasi-post-modernist that I am, I readily admit that there is no such thing as objective history. By the way–how much for autographed copies of the new OPC historical volumes?) David O’Leary’s refreshing recollections of key OPC pastors that appeared in a recent New Horizons is a side of the OPC history wouldn’t get the light of day in a DGH history, except maybe, as a stumble where she almost lost her core identity.
I wish more people would read Kline as well. Clearly, Kline repudiated theonomy. But neo-Calvinism? I’m not so sure. And they are not the same thing, I say for the upteenth time! It seems to me that you would have Dick Gaffin repudiating neo-Calvinism. That seems bizarre to me, but I guess we could ask Dr. Gaffin himself. I’ve thought from the get-go as I have encountered your R2K material that you are the one confused about neo-Calvinism.
I still regret that you didn’t make a speech at the OPC GA when my appeal came up. I continue to regard the outcome as the result of a bizarre coalition between theonomy-leaning young earth Creationists and more evangelical recent converts to Reformed thinking still influenced by the ICR and David Nobel type worldview fundamentalists. It was the neo-Calvinists and the Old Schoolers/Lifers that went on record to support my case (or at least give me the liberty to hold my view), since they actually knew the OPC’s history and track record on these faith and science issues.
LikeLike
Neo-Calvinism is a rather technical historical theology term that refers to the revival of Calvinist orthodoxy in the Netherlands in the late 19th and early 20th century under Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Hermann Dooyeweerd and others. I’m sure most of them would have regarded themselves as paleo-Calvinists. Much of this got exported to the US in the CRC and PRC. If we’re talking about something else, when we refer to neo-Calvinism, then I apologize for the confusion. I’ve always assumed that’s what we’re talking about.
I’m not sure where Little Geneva is (sorry about my igorance–are we talking about Grand Rapids?). Certainly, amillenniellism was the word of the day under Anthony Hoekema and the CRC theologians. “The Bible and the Future” remains a marvelous introduction to eschatology. Again, perhaps we need to be more discriminating. Zrim, are the “posties” you know, theonomists? Or are they really neo-Calvinists?
LikeLike
This is a reasonable introduction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Calvinism
LikeLike
Terry, first, I was not a commissioner at that famed GA. I’m not even sure if I were in office.
But please do not try to school me on how old neo-Calvinism is in the OPC. Have you heard of this guy, Machen? Until you wrestle with the Old School Presbyterian tradition of the spirituality of the church, which is different from sphere sovereignty (but not antithetical), you may want to withhold comments on the OPC’s identity.
It’s a nice and inspiriting story to say that the OPC retains the best of the Dutch and Old Princeton. But anyone who knows about differences between Warfield and Van Til may also be open to the notion that those traditions are not the same or easily reconciled on all points.
BTW, do I talk about your scientific research as disturbingly unobjective?
LikeLike
Terry, yes, when I say Little Geneva I mean Grand Rapids.
And when I say neo-Calvinism I have in mind VanDrunen’s conception he puts forth in “Always Reformed” under “The Neo-Calvinist Legacy” beginning at page 145. Pardon both the length and sloppy formatting:
With these difficult questions on the table I now reflect upon one prominent part of the modern legacy of Calvin and Kuyper: neo-Calvinism (particularly in its North American forms).31 One thing that even larger-than-life geniuses cannot control is their legacy. Merely as an ordinary professor I have learned to live in fear of what my students might do or say allegedly under my influence. I can only hope that Bob Godfrey is not experiencing acute symptoms of the same feeling as he reads this essay.
Of course it is difficult to know exactly what Calvin and Kuyper would have thought about their modern legacies. They may well have looked upon those who call themselves by their name today with a combination of appreciation, horror, and amusement. In my judgment, neo-Calvinism is significantly different from Calvin’s own theology in some crucial respects. Its appeal to Kuyper is more plausible, but I believe (and I think Bob Godfrey agrees) that in many important ways Kuyper bears more resemblance to Calvin and early Reformed orthodoxy than he does to neo-Calvinism.
Neo-Calvinism is a diverse movement. Its adherents land both to the left and the right of the socio-political spectrum and have different degrees of devotion to the orthodox system of Reformed theology. What unites them, however, is significant. When I refer to “neo-Calvinism” I have in mind a form of Christianity that promotes worldview thinking, a creation-fall-redemption paradigm for reading Scripture, and the transformation of this world’s cultures. Arguably it is indebted, as much as to anything, to Herman Dooyeweerd’s appropriation and development of Kuyper’s thought. It has flourished—perhaps not surprisingly in light of previous comments—in the Netherlands and in Dutch communities in Canada, the United States, and South Africa.
Another common characteristic of neo-Calvinism, amidst its diversity, is its dedication to putting the church in its place. That may seem unnecessarily pejorative, but I believe it is not unfair. What I mean is that neo-Calvinism, if it is united by anything, is united by a desire to promote Christian cultural engagement, the goodness of all lawful vocations, and a “kingdom vision” that includes but by no means is limited to the church. Conceptions of Christianity that are overly church-focused—and hence restricted in their kingdom vision—come in for special critique. Neo-Calvinism aims to convince believers that Christianity is about all of life and that their common occupations are just as holy and redeemable as their pastor’s work and their own worship on Sunday. Of course none of its proponents are anti-church and many of them are dedicated servants of the church. It seeks to elevate other institutions and activities rather than lower the church’s status, but the effect is still to ensure that the church does not have too prominent a place in the Christian life, for the sake of a holistic kingdom vision.
This holistic kingdom vision—notably different from Calvin’s kingdom theology—is undergirded by many of the features of neo-Calvinism mentioned above: the emphasis upon worldview, the creation-fall-redemption paradigm, and the drive for cultural transformation. One of its chief theological
distinctives is the conviction that redemption consists in enabling Christians to take up again the original cultural task of Adam, that is, the task of developing the potentialities of creation and perhaps even building the stuff of the world-to-come, the new heavens and new earth. If this is what redemption is, it is quite logical to conclude that the church is important for the Christian life but not precisely where the main action lies. The main action is in fulfilling the original creation mandate in the various spheres of human culture.
The neo-Calvinist vision is compelling in many ways, and it is not difficult to understand why it has proven so attractive to a great number of Reformed Christians in the past century. This vision has inspired the formation of numerous institutions—in North America particularly educational institutions—and has offered a plausible framework for ordinary Christians to ascribe meaning to their various vocations.
Reformed churches, nevertheless, have not flourished under the watch of neo-Calvinism. Perhaps there were days of promise in the aftermath of the Doleantie and the early years of the GKN, and the rise of Kuyperian influence in the Christian Reformed Church in the first half of the twentieth century corresponded, for a time, with a widespread doctrinal orthodoxy and resistance to liberal and Americanizing forces. The fate of Reformed orthodoxy in such churches, however, has not proven to be a happy one.
The lifespan of vibrant, confessional Reformed Christianity in the GKN
(and sister Kuyperian institutions such as the Free University of Amsterdam)
has been, in broader historical perspective, remarkably brief. The decline of
confessional Reformed Christianity in the CRC has been more protracted,
and many orthodox ministers and parishioners remain. But neo-Calvinism
did get a later start in the CRC and there seems little standing in the way
of further disintegration of historic Reformed doctrines and practices and
further assimilation to mainstream contemporary religious trends. In my
own experience as one born and raised in the CRC, what seems to unite
most of the denomination is not a shared sense of commitment to the doctrine
and life set forth in the Heidelberg Catechism but to a common cultural
heritage (perhaps not even consciously embraced as such) and/or a
common sense of a duty to pursue cultural transformation (whatever that
might look like).
In the long run, therefore, neo-Calvinism, despite its admirable commitment
to education, has not been able to sustain vibrant, growing, and
doctrinally sound Reformed churches over many generations. Its vision of
Christian culture has been realized, in partial measure, only in relatively
small pockets of rather isolated communities. Even many of these communities
have suffered significantly in recent years. Some of them have been
overwhelmed by the influx of outsiders and been forced to retreat (in smaller
numbers) to other places where they can again be more isolated from the
larger world. (The ongoing story of Dutch Reformed Christianity in southern
Chicagoland, where my own ancestors settled in the mid-nineteenth
century, is a good example.)35 Others have been declining along with other
small, rural, agricultural towns in middle America, as family farms decline
in number and the next generation moves off to suburbia.
Obviously neo-Calvinism did not set out to decimate the church, but to
raise other institutions to a level of (equal) importance—all with very good
intentions to protect against cultural indifference and to give meaning to
all areas of life. The church, unfortunately for neo-Calvinism, is not the sort
of institution designed by Christ to be one among equals for Christians.
Neo-Calvinism has not only made little noticeable progress in transforming
Western civilization (or even Holland, or South Holland), but it has
to an alarming degree lost the importance and uniqueness of the church
along the way as well. It certainly has done no better than earlier Reformed
Christianity in resisting the temptation of theological liberalism and other
contemporary religious fads.
With these difficult questions on the table I now reflect upon one prominent
part of the modern legacy of Calvin and Kuyper: neo-Calvinism (particularly
in its North American forms).31 One thing that even larger-than-life
geniuses cannot control is their legacy. Merely as an ordinary professor I
have learned to live in fear of what my students might do or say allegedly
under my influence. I can only hope that Bob Godfrey is not experiencing
acute symptoms of the same feeling as he reads this essay.
Of course it is difficult to know exactly what Calvin and Kuyper would
have thought about their modern legacies. They may well have looked
upon those who call themselves by their name today with a combination
of appreciation, horror, and amusement. In my judgment, neo-Calvinism
is significantly different from Calvin’s own theology in some crucial respects.
Its appeal to Kuyper is more plausible, but I believe (and I think
Bob Godfrey agrees) that in many important ways Kuyper bears more
resemblance to Calvin and early Reformed orthodoxy than he does to
neo-Calvinism.
Neo-Calvinism is a diverse movement. Its adherents land both to the left
and the right of the socio-political spectrum and have different degrees of
devotion to the orthodox system of Reformed theology. What unites them,
however, is significant. When I refer to “neo-Calvinism” I have in mind a
form of Christianity that promotes worldview thinking, a creation-fallredemption
paradigm for reading Scripture, and the transformation of
this world’s cultures.32 Arguably it is indebted, as much as to anything,to Herman Dooyeweerd’s appropriation and development of Kuyper’s
thought. It has flourished—perhaps not surprisingly in light of previous
comments—in the Netherlands and in Dutch communities in Canada, the
United States, and South Africa.
Another common characteristic of neo-Calvinism, amidst its diversity,
is its dedication to putting the church in its place. That may seem unnecessarily
pejorative, but I believe it is not unfair. What I mean is that neo-
Calvinism, if it is united by anything, is united by a desire to promote
Christian cultural engagement, the goodness of all lawful vocations, and a
“kingdom vision” that includes but by no means is limited to the church.
Conceptions of Christianity that are overly church-focused—and hence
restricted in their kingdom vision—come in for special critique. Neo-Calvinism
aims to convince believers that Christianity is about all of life and
that their common occupations are just as holy and redeemable as their
pastor’s work and their own worship on Sunday.33 Of course none of its
proponents are anti-church and many of them are dedicated servants of
the church. It seeks to elevate other institutions and activities rather than
lower the church’s status, but the effect is still to ensure that the church
does not have too prominent a place in the Christian life, for the sake of a
holistic kingdom vision.
This holistic kingdom vision—notably different from Calvin’s kingdom
theology—is undergirded by many of the features of neo-Calvinism mentioned
above: the emphasis upon worldview, the creation-fall-redemption
paradigm, and the drive for cultural transformation. One of its chief theological
distinctives is the conviction that redemption consists in enabling
Christians to take up again the original cultural task of Adam, that is, the
task of developing the potentialities of creation and perhaps even building
the stuff of the world-to-come, the new heavens and new earth.34 If this is
what redemption is, it is quite logical to conclude that the church is important
for the Christian life but not precisely where the main action lies.
The main action is in fulfilling the original creation mandate in the various
spheres of human culture.
The neo-Calvinist vision is compelling in many ways, and it is not difficult
to understand why it has proven so attractive to a great number of
Reformed Christians in the past century. This vision has inspired the formation
of numerous institutions—in North America particularly educational
institutions—and has offered a plausible framework for ordinary
Christians to ascribe meaning to their various vocations.
Reformed churches, nevertheless, have not flourished under the watch
of neo-Calvinism. Perhaps there were days of promise in the aftermath of
the Doleantie and the early years of the GKN, and the rise of Kuyperian influence
in the Christian Reformed Church in the first half of the twentieth
century corresponded, for a time, with a widespread doctrinal orthodoxy
and resistance to liberal and Americanizing forces. The fate of Reformed
orthodoxy in such churches, however, has not proven to be a happy one.
The lifespan of vibrant, confessional Reformed Christianity in the GKN
(and sister Kuyperian institutions such as the Free University of Amsterdam)
has been, in broader historical perspective, remarkably brief. The decline of
confessional Reformed Christianity in the CRC has been more protracted,
and many orthodox ministers and parishioners remain. But neo-Calvinism
did get a later start in the CRC and there seems little standing in the way
of further disintegration of historic Reformed doctrines and practices and
further assimilation to mainstream contemporary religious trends. In my
own experience as one born and raised in the CRC, what seems to unite
most of the denomination is not a shared sense of commitment to the doctrine
and life set forth in the Heidelberg Catechism but to a common cultural
heritage (perhaps not even consciously embraced as such) and/or a
common sense of a duty to pursue cultural transformation (whatever that
might look like).
In the long run, therefore, neo-Calvinism, despite its admirable commitment
to education, has not been able to sustain vibrant, growing, and
doctrinally sound Reformed churches over many generations. Its vision of
Christian culture has been realized, in partial measure, only in relatively
small pockets of rather isolated communities. Even many of these communities
have suffered significantly in recent years. Some of them have been
overwhelmed by the influx of outsiders and been forced to retreat (in smaller
numbers) to other places where they can again be more isolated from the
larger world. (The ongoing story of Dutch Reformed Christianity in southern
Chicagoland, where my own ancestors settled in the mid-nineteenth
century, is a good example.)35 Others have been declining along with other
small, rural, agricultural towns in middle America, as family farms decline
in number and the next generation moves off to suburbia.
Obviously neo-Calvinism did not set out to decimate the church, but to
raise other institutions to a level of (equal) importance—all with very good
intentions to protect against cultural indifference and to give meaning to
all areas of life. The church, unfortunately for neo-Calvinism, is not the sort
of institution designed by Christ to be one among equals for Christians.
Neo-Calvinism has not only made little noticeable progress in transforming
Western civilization (or even Holland, or South Holland), but it has
to an alarming degree lost the importance and uniqueness of the church
along the way as well. It certainly has done no better than earlier Reformed
Christianity in resisting the temptation of theological liberalism and other
contemporary religious fads.
LikeLike
Darryl, Yes. I know my Presbyterian history–not as well as you, I’m sure–and you might be surprised to learn that I have Old School sympathies. I even complained the other day when our church midweek email came out with a red, white, and blue banner. My greatest fear when leading a hymn favorites time during a worship service is that someone will pick The Battle Hymn of the Republic which happens to be in one of the hymnals we used. Gardener-Spring was a bad move. For what it’s worth I’ve done lots of wrestling, and while an amateur at the history of American Presbyterianism, I’m guessing I know a lot more about your craft than you know about mine (no boasting intended). Also, I’m not oblivious to the tensions between Old Princeton and Old Amsterdam. But, as important as Machen is to the OPC (and I love Machen and his view almost as much as you do), the OPC moved beyond in a different direction in welcoming the continental Reformed faction. We all know how Carl McIntire complained how the new church had come under foreign influences with Murray, Van Til, and others. I do think that the Dutch perspective was closer to Machen’s own than was McIntire–would you agree? The American Presbyterian church had become Americanized in a way that an immigrant church like the CRC was particularly sensitive to. This has been one of the grand hallmarks of the OPC and CRC (perhaps until recently). The conservative Reformed avoidance of American civil religion is one of the things separating us from broader American evangelicalism.
I’m all ears if you have any criticisms of my scientific research.
How about those autographed books–I’m quite serious. We can go off-line if you want to negotiate a deal.
LikeLike
Darryl:
I would prefer to talk off-line with you if you are saying something personal and inappropriate by what I cite below, but since you said it on-line, I will ask what you mean by
‘Alan, does self-righteousness also knock you over?’
It looks time-wise as if you had not had occasion to read my post immediately above the one in which you said what I quoted. Even so, you have not cited a single reputable Reformed theologian who would deny that we cooperate in our sanctification.
I have always and everywhere–talk to anyone who knows–over the whole course of my ministry emphasized our native misery and wretchedness and our utter reliance on the Lord. To say that we must be active in pursuing the Lord through the means of grace is not to say that those things are our hope and trust. Christ alone is, brought home to us, and us to Him, by the Spirit who makes efficacious those means. It is, at every point, all of grace, of course.
LikeLike
Terry (and anyone else I may frustrate),
I don’t know if my question upset you since I know you were discussing things with Zrim and Darryl. Sorry if I misrepresented you or didn’t understand you. I’m new to, well, reformed theology (confessionally speaking), so I was just trying to clarify what you were saying.
Reading this blog has been a culture shock considering my journey to reformed theology was evangelical “reformed” until a few months ago. Now I’m swimming in new ideas and rich theology, and I’m trying to get used to approaching theology with substance. It’s refreshing, but I’m still getting familiar with it. Sorry if I seem slow on the uptake.
LikeLike
John, Didn’t mean to ignore you and, I confess, that it’s easy and tempting to get a little snarky on this blog especially if you’re not quite on board with the project.
I agree with you and Zrim and others who have stressed the gift and grace side of sanctification. It is God’s work in us that motivates and enables us to respond in obedience. While I don’t consider myself a Reconstructionist, I have an appreciation for the theonomist crowd. I can’t imagine that they wouldn’t agree with this while at the time stressing the importance of a resolute and dutiful attempt to obey the commands of scripture.
I would encourage all of us to have a generous attitude toward each other’s words and formulations. One of my frustrations here is that my olive branches are met with such resistance. I much appreciatie most of what DGH is doing here, but theologically, I tend to be a lumper rather than a splitter. My attempts to find common ground between R2K and neo-Calvinism are uncompromisingly rebuffed.
LikeLike
Terry, I think you’re right about Machen, Van Til, and McIntyre. But if your account of Old School Presby’s and Dutch neo-Cals is accurate, then how do you explain what happened to the CRC and the OPC and the way they went in different directions. It sure looks like the world-and-life-viewism of neo-Calvinism explains a lot. So it is hard for me to understand why after such history you keep wanting to insist that the Old School and Neo-Cals are so close. Maybe the Neo-Cals need the correction supplied by the Old School.
BTW, the Old School wouldn’t let any elder lead a hymn sing and the Battle Hymn of the Republic would not be in the hymnal.
LikeLike
Alan, my comment about self-righteousness was not directed at you but it was a reason for indicating caution about calling sanctification syncretistic. After all Rome says everything is of grace and that wasn’t real good for a healthy view of works or sanctification.
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarficiation, Darryl.
I’ve made, as did Terry especially in quoting Archie Hodge, all the proper Reformed (and Protestant) distinctions: clearly, my evocation of “all of grace” could not be mistaken for the teaching of the Tridentine canons.
I stand by every thing I have said and assert that there is no reason, when all the proper distinctions are made, to refuse to affirm that we cooperate in our sanctification. This is standard Reformed fare, both in the Stanrdards and in the theologians.
LikeLike
Darryl, I’m not sure it’s neo-Calvinism in principle that’s the problem in the CRC. It’s world Jewish that’s untethered from the particulars of scripture. John Frame once called it the love-and-justice hermeneutic where broad principles trump apparently contrary texts (as in the women in office issue). I also think that the so-called doctrinalists have either left the CRC or become significantly diminished. Also, I think that there is genuine liberalism in some quarters of the church. These factors together with a reduced commitment to sphere sovereignty and antithesis have contributed to the problems you identify.
I only claim Old School leanings–you know how loosey-goosey I am on worship. TIC. I am fully committed to the regulative principle–as are most instrument using hymn singing OPC folks. FWIW I’d be happy to rip all the patriotic songs out of our hymnal. As for whether elders can lead in worship–no reason not to say that that’s fully in accord with Old School principles (although perhaps not the tradition).
LikeLike
world Jewish should be worldviewism
My iPhone apologizes.
LikeLike
Terry,
No hard feelings on my part, I just wanted to make it clear I wasn’t trying to step on toes. It’s been an adventure starting to read this blog. My theology is starting to form (or I should say, ideas I already held are starting to get put together) into the R2K theology, as I understand it. I’m sure I have inconsistencies, but this is all new. I’m still trying to piece together which regulars on this blog are in which camps so I can get a grasp of where people are coming from. However, as I was warned by the guy who recomended this blog, its a bit like jumping into the middle of a developed conversation but it’s worth it when you’re in.
One of the reasons I like this blog is the diversity of the perspectives. I love to learn, even positions I am at total odds. I find it better to find out what people say they believer other than be told by my “allies” what other people believe.
In regard to snarky responses, I’m sure I’ll get there. At this point I’m just more intimidated by the amount of people well versed in confessions and reformed theology where as I’m more versed than the vast majority of people I know, but not like this crowd at all. I’m kindof afraid that Darryl will yell at me like Walter Sobchak and say “Johnny, you’re out of your element!” and then I’ll have to shrink back into the shadows. 🙂 Anyway, I’m sure with enough time and more reading I’ll get more confident around this blog.
LikeLike
Johnny, V.I. Lenin!! Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov!!!
LikeLike
Alan, the reaction here came to the claim that sanctification is synergistic. Synergism is always a scare word. Plus, to say that sanctification is God’s work and ours is indeed a mystery, so profound that it is prone to a heap of error. Just ask John Wesley. For my money, I’d always rather err on the side of giving God the credit.
LikeLike
Wow, Terry, I thought you were making a very obscure and therefore very profound point.
John, a terminology clarification: no one calls themselves R(adical)2K, although you are free to be first. It’s a term intended to marginalize a 2K proponent.
LikeLike
Darryl:
God unquestionably gets the credit for it all. Without Him, we can do nothing. And any good that comes forth from our lives is due to Him and Him alone. He vivifies us, to be sure, in sanctification. But we must be dedicated over and again to mortifying sin.
You are concerned that God get the glory. Amen! I am fully with you on that. That, however, ought not to be set over against the imperative that is ours to die to sin and live to righteousness. Thus we must say that it is God’s work and ours even as we must affirm all the aspects of the unspeakable mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Your response to Terry was imbalanced, in my view, since it stressed one thing at the expense of another. And it did so in a context in which both of the necessary things were being affirmed. Just as I refuse to allow Arius’s heresy to prompt me to deny Christ’s humanity (in response) or Eutyches’s heresy to prompt me to deny the integrity of the theanthropic person (in response), so I refuse to allow Wesley’s folly to prompt me to deny that we are called to the activity of dying to sin and living to rigtheousness.
LikeLike
Alan, but isn’t the problem here that the call to mortification needs to be executed. And depending on how you construe that call may lead Reformed Protestants to follow the plans laid out by Wesleyans, which then leads in my estimation to a potentially self-absorbed and vocation denying understanding of the Christian (read: higher) life. Since sin infects everything I do (is this only my problem? Don’t answer.), wouldn’t the call to mortification be a full-time job that distracts me from other callings — such as being a husband, neighbor, elder, teacher, writer — you get the point. And it is here that Luther’s notion of sinning boldly resonates with me more than the experimental Calvinist disposition of rooting sin out from every nook and cranny. Ideally, of course, we do seek to root it out. But ideals can lead to idealism, just as the quest for a just society can lead to all sorts of social planning. In which case, I wonder if believers need to hear more about going about their daily lives with sobriety and thanksgiving, while also knowing they are going to break lots of eggs.
LikeLike
DGH or our resident Lutherans:
“Sinning boldly”: I’ve seen this numerous times but still don’t know what it means. It’s becoming bothersome. Can someone explain what Luther means by this? Is it in tension with mortification of the flesh, or is it saying something about fully recognizing our sin nature and fully resting in the gospel cure?
LikeLike
Michael
Thanks for the clarity. I guess that makes more sense. One of my friends around here considers himself 2k…somehow…but argues that the Noahic covenant is the same as the others “theres not seven, theres one”. While he calls himself 2k he holds some idea along the lines of theres two kingdoms now being “redeemed” into one. He refered to be as a R2K and not “real 2k”…which confused me into thinking there might be gradations among 2kers? Anyway, I know now that what I thought was right, hes not 2k at all. Thanks for the clarity.
LikeLike
Darryl:
That’s helpful, though I think that you caricature experimental Calvinism, depiciting the whole of it by what is true of some of its partisans. Do you not think it better as a Calvinist to reject Calvinist excesses rather than to turn to an idealized Lutheranism that I think has more problems with sanctification than does mainstream Calvinism?
How do you resonate with Calvin in Book 3 on sanctification (which was long ago excerpted as “The Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life”)? I find that to be a very clear statement of the matter. I will grant you that some Calvinists thereafter go to excesses and engage in a kind of spiritual navel-gazing, at least at points, if not wholly.
As a Reformed office-bearer should you not look for the primary resources for this within the historic Reformed faith, and go outside only as supplemental? Do you think that the Reformed faith has, vis-a-vis Lutheranism, fundamentally erred with respect to sanctification? Does Luther get this better than Calvin?
LikeLike
John, others can answer this better then me, but I believe there are degrees of 2k. The more I ponder it, the more extensive it appears. I would liken it to a paradigm, and one that satisfactorily solves numerous problems that afflict the evangelical church. Studying 2k is not like getting a hamburger at the drive-through; I have found this blog and its dialogue very helpful.
LikeLike
Darryl, Absolutely God gets all the glory and there is no room for boasting. My regenerate, striving toward obedience self is a gift of God, a result of his grace. I’m with you in almost all that you’ve said in the last couple of posts. I’m even comfortable with calling synergism a scary word for the some of the reasons you suggest. But, I think the Bible trumps my fears here and since the Bible speaks of cooperation so must we. I love the “balance” (perhaps tension is the better word) of the hymn: “Ever lift thy face upon me as I work and wait for thee…keep me ever trusting, resting, fill me with thy grace.”
I’m also very comfortable with “sin boldly”. (MM, I think what is meant is closer to your latter suggestion.). While we strive to put off sin and to put on obedience, we walk in the confidence of our justification and adoption, freely admitting our continued sin. (No, Darryl, you’re not the only one.) The Luther friendliness of this blog is one of its attractions.
And now to cross-over to neo-Cal “kingdom work”. All these provisos also apply there. It’s God’s work, doing our part is enabled by his grace, he gets the glory, it’s incomplete in this life, it’s never perfectly executed, i.e. “sin boldly” applies there as well.
LikeLike
Michael, like Terry, I think it is closer to your latter notion.
It might also help to know the context of the words. Luther was writing in response to Melanchthon, who was being his notoriously introspective self and given to all manner of personal doubt, etc. In response, Luther is saying that the gospel is completely outside us and so was directing him to be extrospective instead. When contrasted to experimental Calvinism that directs the sinner to his interior life to varying degrees, Lutheranism is really a breath of fresh air because it is resigned to the fact that we are sinners and, like our Reformed confessions and catechisms tell us, we will always be more sinful than not. That will never change this side of glorification; but all we can do is look outside of us for help, and the more we are being what we are the more we are forced to look for that help.
It seems to me that the more introspective we are the more “go and sin boldly” doesn’t make any sense, since the default direction of the introspective is to root out sin. The extrospective doesn’t hold any illusions of rooting out sin but is soberly resigned to its reality and is instead more focused on Christ outside, which ironically seems to be the best way to mortify the flesh as opposed to diving into it.
LikeLike
Preach it, Zrim. The scriptural pattern is “be what you already are”. The ought follows the is. Justification is the springboard for sanctification. The gospel motivates law-keeping. Some of this is straightfoward gratitude based motivation, but I think there’s also a mysterious empowerment that happens when we follow God’s order: look outside to Christ for righteousness and life and by that means God stirs us to faithful obedience and putting to death the old. But, first things first. Thus, the importance of regularly hearing the Gospel and participating in the sacraments.
LikeLike
But, Terry, what I really want is affirmation of VanDrunen’s construal of neo-Calvinism. Have you no response to that? Above you concede that the CRC’s problem is “worldviewism untethered from the particulars of Scripture.” After fourteen years in the CRC I do believe that DVD has diagnosed her very well. You’ve also made rather dismissive remarks about DVD’s assessment of neo-Cals, theomonists and broad evangelicals. Frankly, I struggle to understand how someone in the CRC who understands what afflicts her on one hand can find the estimations of DVD so foolish.
LikeLike
Zrim. DVD’s description that you quote seems fair for the most part. But I’m not convinced that the negative impact on the church is a necessary consequence of neo-Calvinism. In fact, I would say that it is not. I also observed during my time at Calvin (1986-1997) that transformationalism was the common thread among faculty from quite diverse backgrounds. That this rather narrow definition of Calvinism or Reformed was allowed is the problem. Commitment to the Reformed confessions and the institutional church should have been of similar importance (as they would have been for Kuyper himself). So the problem as I see it is that “worldviewism” was brought to American evangelicalism by the continental Reformed, then untethered from its Reformed theological roots, then reabsorbed into an Americanized and evangelicalized CRC.
There was nothing faulty with the original enterprise. In fact, it flows from the best of Reformed theology. At least in the quote you presented I don’t see any explanation for why neo-Calvinism must diminish the church.
I tend to to think that in the CRC we have lost track of the antithesis and have gotten a bit too friendly with the world and identify left leaning social justice issues as Christian (similar to mainstream denominations–remember (tranformationalism + common grace) – (sphere sovereignty + antithesis) = social gospel and a failure to see gospel preaching and worship (“missions exists because worship doesn’t” to quote one of the favorite voices on this blog) to be the chief tasks of the church.
I’m convinced of creation-fall-redemption as a key outline of scripture. Based on both OT and NT writings, I embrace an eschatology that has a lot more continuity with the original creation than DVD’s writings suggest. This is part of what tips the balance for me in going with neo-Calvinism rather than R2K. There IS much overlap between the “potentialities of the original Creation” and the “stuff of the age to come”. Why DVD suggests that the church is not where the main action is is not clear to me. Transformation of culture only happens as hearts are transformed and the church is established. The other six days get their life-blood from the first day!
I also suggest that the historical record shows that 100 years is about right for the long term success of any reform movement. If we merge the late 19th century Dutch beginnings with the continuation in the US, then Kuyper’s reformation lasted about 100 years. So the OPC only has about 25 years left. Frankly, I don’t know that the OPC has really learned how to cope with success. For whatever reason as denominations get bigger there is more diversity and breadth (note Loettscher’s The Broadening Church). Sadly, this often results in apostasy. The OPC has been able to stay on the straight and narrow because it has not allowed itself to grow. If you look back on the history of the OPC there is a lopping off of its more progressive end about every 10-20 years and it contracts in size back to a size where orthodoxy can be easily managed. To my knowledge none of the progressives were actually liberals, but it’s not hard to imagine that, as in the PCUSA, the moderates are more tolerant of the presence of liberals than conservatives, so the seeds of apostasy are planted. I don’t know the answer on this question. I have childhood roots in the UPCUSA (as does the OPC as a denomination). Her history is our history. She too struggled with breadth vs. orthodoxy. I am sad to see the spiritual confusion found in our bastard cousins. So at least the OPC has a firm stand on God’s Word (and Reformed orthodoxy and orthopraxis).
I guess the upshot is that the problem is not neo-Calvinism, but rather a shoddy ecclesiology.
LikeLike
Terry, what if neo-calvinism has a shoddy ecclesiology? And what if a flawed view of the kingdom and of eschatology is what feeds the flawed ecclesiology? One reason DVD argues for the church as the main action is the conviction, affirmed in WCF, that the visible church is the kingdom of Christ outside of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. Kingdom work, the lordship of Christ over all things (without a distinction between redemption and creation) do lead to a flawed ecclesiology. As much as I appreciate what you write here, I also see it when you indicate that worldview should be of similar importance as the confessions and the church. Worldview is extraconfessional You have now put something outside the confession on a par with the confession.
My own sense of Kuyper is that one of the original flies in the ointment was a Dutch patriotism that bordered on civil religion. He believed that Calvinism had made the Dutch republic great and he wanted to recover that greatness. He was much more thoughtful and original than Jerry Falwell or Francis Schaeffer, but all of those guys were seeking to promote a faith in connection not with the church but the nation.
LikeLike
Thanks, Terry. Interesting points.
Why DVD suggests that the church is not where the main action is is not clear to me. Transformation of culture only happens as hearts are transformed and the church is established.
Which brings us back to issues of sanctification, sin and grace, not to mention assumptions about culture. From where I sit, James Hunter’s latest (To Change the World) fairly well deconstructs the naiveté resident within this notion about “hearts and culture.” But I also think there is more to the distinction between institutional Christianity and cultural Christianity. It seems to me the default setting is to think these are two great tastes that can go great together. With all due respect to your mathematical formulations for it, that’s actually the simpler recipe for social gospel, leftists or rightist.
LikeLike
That was a very helpful discussion about Neo-Cal and 2K. Having attended Calvin College (1990-1994) and being influenced by the transformationalism there (the backdrop of all the classes was on how to use your vocational studies to further the kingdom of God in the culture when you graduated- with required written essays and readings in that regard) it took awhile for me to buy into the 2K point of view. I am more convinced of the 2K position now and like Michael Mann stated it does make sense of some of the more thorny issues about Christ and culture than Neo-Cal does. The Neo-Cal position does seem to “eat up” ecclesiology and make it less significant too- but Terry makes some thoughtful remarks about that. I enjoyed reading all the thoughtful remarks and dialog.
LikeLike
MM,
Good to have you back- hope you are well rested and had a good time doing whatever you do on vacation. I used to have a paper where the dialog between Luther and Melancthon was recorded and where Luther uttered his famous phrase “go out and sin boldly Melanchthon and then come back and boldly confess your sin to God- the Gospel is entirely outside of you.” I looked for it but could not find it- it is probably in storage with a lot of my other books and things.
As Zrim stated, Melancthon was prone to navel gaze, wonder and worry about his standing before a Holy God. He never felt as though he was measuring up and was quite obsessed with that type of mental gymnastics. Luther was constantly having to reassure him that the scriptures were clear that Christ’s righteousness, imputed to us through faith, was sufficient to cover our lack. That was what the Law, the Gospel and the Sacraments were all about, ie., to do for us what we could not do for ourselves.
Here are a couple of long winded explanations of Luthers “Sin boldly” remark: http://tquid.sharpens.org/sin_boldly.htm
http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Luther-Sin-Boldly.html
LikeLike
John, thanks for the input and the links. The following quote from Luther was especially helpful:
13.”If you are a preacher of Grace, then preach a true, not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. For he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here we have to sin. This life in not the dwelling place of righteousness but, as Peter says, we look for a new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. . . . Pray boldly-you too are a mighty sinner.” (Weimar ed. vol. 2, p. 371; Letters I, “Luther’s Works,” American Ed., Vol 48. p. 281- 282)
13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.
I take the quote, then, as a memorable piece of hyperbole (like the scriptural ideas of hating one’s own family and cutting off an offending member) to make important points about sin and grace.
And, yes, I had an enjoyable vacation. There was boating, kayaking, swimming, cliff diving (I mean, you know, for the kids while I kept the boat nearby), and even clearing fallen trees off the camp road. Plus I got through a book on the history of the blues and most of a book of poetry. Now THAT’S a vacation; the kind where you have to ask what day it is and your inner (reduced) tempo lingers afterwards.
LikeLike
Terry, like others, I appreciated your thoughtful comments. Too many neocals react to 2K without having taken sufficient pains to understand it or they throw out populist slogans to denigrate it. But I am particularly drawn to the following from DVD:
Obviously neo-Calvinism did not set out to decimate the church, but to
raise other institutions to a level of (equal) importance—all with very good
intentions to protect against cultural indifference and to give meaning to
all areas of life. The church, unfortunately for neo-Calvinism, is not the sort
of institution designed by Christ to be one among equals for Christians.
Here is where the neocal perspective will eventually crash given sufficient time. Consider your comment “[t]ransformation of culture only happens as hearts are transformed and the church is established. The other six days get their life-blood from the first day!” Here, the church looks like the proverbial huddle before the real game is executed. It serves the common kingdom and is therefore, in practice, subservient to the common kingdom. And there is the force which will make the inner affairs of the church less and less important over time. The church becomes a means for a greater end, therefore tending towards a lower view of the church and a relative (in comparison to 2K) indifference to the church.
LikeLike
A question about some of the interchange above:
DGH had said: “And it is here that Luther’s notion of sinning boldly resonates with me more than the experimental Calvinist disposition of rooting sin out from every nook and cranny. Ideally, of course, we do seek to root it out.”
To which Alan Strange responded: “Do you not think it better as a Calvinist to reject Calvinist excesses rather than to turn to an idealized Lutheranism that I think has more problems with sanctification than does mainstream Calvinism?”
But DGH was not turning to Lutheranism; rather, he was quoting Luther himself, who, if I understand correctly, was generally accepted by Reformed Orthodox theologians as one of their own. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but would Calvin himself have understood his view of the Christian life to be a departure from Luther’s understanding?
LikeLike
“Michael Mann”, Those are your words and not mine. I suggest that my true meaning is quite contrary. “proverbial huddle”, not “the real game”, “subservient”, “means for a greater end” never crossed my mind. And, while I can fit the notion of “common kingdom” into my neo-Calvinism in terms of common grace and not-the-sphere-of-the-church, I suspect you are imposing R2K conceptions on my words that aren’t there. I’m all for “keeping the church in its place”, i.e. limiting it’s task to spiritual concerns. It seems that’s also part of the R2K lingo in terms of the spirituality of the church. But just because the church is limited isn’t to say that Christ is limited in his authority or reconciling mission. In fact Col 1:20 suggests quite otherwise.
The one place where kingdom and church are the same is in their membership. Thus, only those in the church are in the kingdom. And the church holds the keys. And the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of church discipline are the very ways those keys open and close the church and the kingdom. Not sure how R2K ecclesiology is any different from neo-Calvinist ecclesiology.
Darryl, I’m not at all defending Calvin College or even the CRC on this. As I said before, I learned my neo-Calvinism from OPC pastors and the writings of her theologians. Not sure I find any particular fault with her ecclesiology. So, to be honest, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I was talking about faulty ecclesiology in the CRC which allowed professors and pastors who are transformationally “Reformed” without being confessionally “Reformed”.
By the way, is C. Van Til now a bad guy in your book?
LikeLike
Terry, I don’t doubt that you are very mindful of the matters of the church qua church, but in doing so you swim upstream against your neocal perspective. And, although “huddle,’ etc. are my words, “The other six days get their life-blood from the first day!” were your words. That wouldn’t be a Freudian slip, so I’ll call it a Neocalian Slip.
LikeLike