Historians may not be rocket scientists, but they can generally outwit the smartest of their interlocutors simply by knowing the origins of an idea, event, person, or argument. This is not to say that those who talk to historians understand when historical knowledge trumps philosophy, exegesis, or ideology. Some people are so committed to abstract truths that their ideas are impervious to concrete facts. But historians enjoy an advantage in debate thanks to clay feet that all historical actors (short of being divine persons) have.
For instance, knowing that w— v— thinking began at a certain date in the modern era, or that dramatic conversions are not much older, has an effect on claims that these are timeless truths revealed in holy writ. This historical awareness even extends to ideas that Old Lifers promote such as the spirituality of the church. The historical origins of an idea or truth doesn’t mean it is wrong. It only means it is not timeless and so perhaps its connections to the Bible are less certain.
Current reading and teaching has made me aware of the peculiar strains and tendencies of Puritanism both in Old and New England. For instance, it does look to me like chapter eighteen in the Confession of Faith on Assurance is a direct result of debates among the Puritans about the relationship among good works done in preparation for conversion, justification, and how to evaluate good works after conversion. These debates may have absorbed other Reformed churches, but the Westminster Divines’ willingness to explore the interior dimensions of Christian experience does seem to reflect the turn of experimental Calvinism or practical divinity that in the 1590s surfaced in England and caught fire in the Netherlands.
Another feature of the Confession of Faith that seems to reflect its British setting is the twenty-second chapter on Lawful Oaths and Vows. It is not a brief chapter and discusses the topic as follows:
1. A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.
2. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence. Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred. Yet, as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the new testament as well as under the old; so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken.
3. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth: neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.
4. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation. It cannot oblige to sin; but in anything not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man’s own hurt. Nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.
5. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.
6. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties; or, to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.
7. No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God. In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.
My point in bringing up this chapter is not to challenge the Confession. I don’t find anything objectionable in this chapter. And the counsel about monastic vows has merit and reflects the genuine challenges that confronted Protestants. Still, I wonder when the last time a pastor taught his congregation about oaths and vows. I also wonder when the last time was that a candidate for ministry had to answer questions about oaths and vows. These questions are all the more pressing when we remember that none of the other Reformed confessions have such extensive comments on oaths and vows. Could it be that the background of the National Covenant in Scotland and the Solemn League and Covenant of Parliament and the Scots had more to do with this chapter than the development of Reformed teaching?
I am just asking.
Old Life 
Darryl:
A few unscientific musings.
1. The English had “oaths” of supremacy and “acts” of uniformity. The Presbyterian Thomas Cartwright, the nemesis of Elizabeth’s third Archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift, spent time in the Fleet Prison for derogating and “depraving” the 1559 Book of Common Prayer, violating an oath required of clerics. The “Prefix” to the 1559 BCP outlines the penalties for the first, second and third offenses. Cartwright, while treated well in London prison, was beyond the third set of offenses. Then, the great ejection of 1662 for failure of 2000 clerics to subscribe to the oath and act of uniformity was a sad day in English history as well Cromwell’s earlier disturbances.
2. By analogy, the “Pledge of Allegiance” was routinely said by us in grade school We did it early in the morning, stood to attention, placed our hands over our hearts, presented ourselves in the direction of the flag, and said it. Also, by analogy, there are “oaths” that are taken by every officer and enlisted servicemember in the military. “I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and to obey the orders of officers placed above me…” We said and repeated this oath upon entrance to the military and at each–and every instance–of a promotion to a high paygrade. Every servicemember is aware of this.
3. I was never asked about “oaths” and “vows” during a grueling 7-hour interview for ordination (and the building’s air-conditioning unit had given out that hot Phillie day), following earlier written exams. But, that was the Reformed Episcopal Church. Nor, were there lectures on this while at Westminster, Phila, for two years, and RE Seminary for three years.
4. Good question in a larger trajectory of thought: (1) Elders taking “vows” to upheld and advance the Reformed standards and (2) Church of England clerics, in better days, taking subscription vows to the Thirty-nine Articles. Re: the latter, CoE clerics did it, but it was never required in America after 1789.
5. The meandering musings end, but a very good question.
LikeLike
“I wonder when the last time a pastor taught his congregation about oaths and vows.”
I last taught on oaths and vows on 8 May 2011 in Adult Sunday School. If a pastor teaches the whole Confession of Faith – he can’t miss it.
LikeLike
Bravo, dgh!
I really appreciate you asking this question because it resonates with similar questions I am asking right now.
Can’t we say that Muller is correct – the Calvinist Puritans were not against Calvin, but did go beyond Calvin in some places – and that it is okay to question the helpfulness of the trajectories of those places?
LikeLike
Nick Willborn, whom you will be soon sharing conference duties with at GPTS in a month, had a series of sermons on vows that I think Old Lifers will find profitable:
1. http://tinyurl.com/8x228tb Let Your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’: Vows and Church Membership – How Good is Your Word? Ecclesiastes 5:1-7
2. http://tinyurl.com/7czon62 Let Your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’: Vows and Church Membership – I Vow There is None Righteous…and That Includes Me – Ephesians 2:1-10
3. http://tinyurl.com/7rodrqw Let Your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’: Vows and Church Membership – I Vow to Believe in Jesus Christ…and Him Alone – Ephesians 2:1-10
4. http://tinyurl.com/7fqdaz3 Let Your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’: Vows and Church Membership: I Vow to Live a Holy Life…So Help Me God – Romans 8:1-9
5. http://tinyurl.com/842m2ou Let Your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’: Vows and church Membership: I Promise to be a Churchman…to the best of my ability (small radio interference) Hebrews 10:23-39
6. http://tinyurl.com/88nbqyf Let Your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’: Vows and Church Membership: I am a man under Submission… I promise – Hebrews 13:7-17
7. http://tinyurl.com/6t6zlsg Let Your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’: Vows and Church Membership: Ministers to the Saints – I Timothy 3:8-13
8. http://tinyurl.com/7d7836g Let Your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’: Vows and Church Membership: A Vow to …Make Their Joy Complete
You can also find these sermons on Itunes under “The Covenant Pulpit”.
LikeLike
“Can’t we say that Muller is correct – the Calvinist Puritans were not against Calvin, but did go beyond Calvin in some places – and that it is okay to question the helpfulness of the trajectories of those places?”
Can’t we say that it is okay to question the helpfulness of the trajectory of Calvin in some places? Neither he nor the Puritans have the market cornered on being Reformed, even if they are both historically important.
LikeLike
There is probably a great deal to be said about the context of the Scottish Covenanters in framing this section but for me, having grown up in what was formerly a UP Church that kept some of their distinctives and spending a few years in a “micro presbytery” the forbidding of oaths related to secret societies was/is still taken seriously because of the barrier it puts between a person and his/her pastor, family and God himself.
Going back in time before the covenanters there are Esau’s oath to give up his birthright because he thought he was dying and Jephtha’s rather rash oath, the bugaboo of “unintended consequences” of not thinking through what such a commitment may entail.
LikeLike
“6. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith…”
Schleitheim confession #7,
VII. We are agreed as follows concerning the oath: The oath is a confirmation among those who are quarreling or making promises. In the Law it is commanded to be performed in God’s Name, but only in truth, not falsely. Christ, who teaches the perfection of the Law, prohibits all swearing to His followers, whether true or false – neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by Jerusalem, nor by our head – and that for the reason He shortly thereafter gives, For you are not able to make one hair white or black. So you see it is for this reason that all swearing is forbidden: we cannot fulfill that which we promise when we swear, for we cannot change the very least thing on us.
Now there are some who do not give credence to the simple command of God, but object with this question: Well now, did not God swear to Abraham by Himself when He promised him that He
would be with him and that He would be his God – why then should I not also swear when I promise to someone? Answer: Hear what the Scripture says: God, since He wished more abundantly to show unto the heirs the immutability of His counsel, inserted an oath, that by two immutable things (in which it is impossible for God to lie) we might have a strong consolation.
Observe the meaning of this Scripture: What God forbids you to do, He has power to do, for everything is possible for Him. God swore an oath to Abraham, says the Scripture, in order to show that His counsel is immutable. That is, no one can withstand nor thwart His will; therefore He can keep His oath. But we can do nothing, as is said above by Christ, to keep or perform our oaths: therefore we shall not swear at all
Further some say, Because evil is now in the world, and because man needs God for the establishment of the truth, so did the apostles Peter and Paul also swear. Answer: Peter and Paul only testify of that which God promised to Abraham with the oath. They themselves promise
nothing, as the example indicates clearly. Testifying and swearing are two different things. For when a person swears he is in the first place promising future things, as Christ was promised to Abraham. Whom we a long time afterwards received. But when a person bears testimony he is testifying about the present, as Simeon spoke to Mary about Christ and testified, Behold this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be spoken against.
Christ also taught us along the same line when He said, Let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these comes of evil. He says, Your speech or word shall be yea and nay.
The Seven Articles of Schleitheim, Canton Schaffhausen, Switzerland, February 24, 1527
LikeLike
I would draw one distinction between SOTC and Kuyperianism/neo-Puritanism.
I’m not aware of any advocates of SOTC who believe that SOTC is a litmus test of Christian orthodoxy. In contrast, the 1K crowd seems to have no problem defining orthodoxy in such a way that counts the better part of Old Princeton to be among the heathen hordes.
LikeLike
J. Srnec,
I suppose you’re right in a technical sense, but I was referring to (and rejecting) the “Calvin against the Calvinists” thesis of Kendall, Torrance, and others. Besides, that branch of the Reformation is called “Calvinist” for a reason (not to detract from his other Reformed contemporaries).
Yet even though I reject the “Calvin against the Calvinists” thesis, I am finding that some areas in which Calvinist Puritans went beyond Calvin are not helpful. Piety, in general, is one of those areas. If Kendall and Torrance were correct, we would expect English Calvinists to at least ignore the sacraments, if not deny them or advocate a non-Calvinist understanding of them. But that is not what we find. The Calvinist doctrine of the sacraments is clearly present in the personal writings of major English Calvinists – and, as DGH loves to remind us (and rightly so), it is helpfully captured in WSC 88. But when individual Calvinist Puritan pastors turned to advise their congregations or individual church members about how to practice Reformed piety, what came out (more often than not) was things like the practical syllogism (with a heavy emphasis on introspection and the production of good works), fasting, “watching over” each other, etc. In fact, T.D. Bozeman has drawn some striking parallels between Puritan piety and medieval Roman Catholic piety.
All that to say – Calvin is not Christ, and therefore is not correct about everything. But he had obviously thought through the theology and practice of biblical piety. I’m more persuaded by Calvin and WSC 88.
Chris
LikeLike
I’m convinced that for many people the church membership vow is akin to checking a box before software will load – a necessary prerequisite that is of little ongoing significance. Really, membership classes should routinely include instruction on the nature of vows since the classes are, in part, preparing the prospective member to meaningfully take the vow which is the entry into the church.
LikeLike
Help me out here, Dr. Hart. I’ve noticed in many of your posts an aversion to the concept of a Christian “worldview” (in fact, you seem to find the “worldview” concept so distasteful that you refer to it in this post as “w-v-“). Now, I understand that Kuiperians and other “transformationists” might overdo it when it comes to their emphasis on building a “Christian worldview,” but do you imagine that you don’t also have a “worldview”? Does not every expression of orthodox Christianity assume a basic biblical “worldview” or conceptual structure (namely, creation-fall-redemption-new creation)? And are not such things as 2K, natural law, the spirituality of the church, the “cult/culture” distinction, etc., based upon a particular understanding and conception of a biblically-reformed “worldview”? I understand the term “worldview” and emphasis upon worldview thinking may be more recent in the history of Christian thought, but just because the concept as such may be of more recent historical vintage does not of itself mean that worldviews were non-existent before their identifying terminology was conceived. (Do you really think the apostles, the church fathers, or the Reformers lacked a biblical-Christian “worldview”?)
Sorry if this takes us down a rabbit trail or gets us far afield from your topic, but I just don’t get it. Please help me understand where you are coming from on this matter of “worldview.”
LikeLike
(Theodore Dwight Bozeman, The Precisianist Strain, p 20-21
“English penitential teaching expressly echoed and bolstered moral priorities. In contrast, again, to Luther, whose penitential teaching stressed the rueful sinner’s attainment of peace through acknowledgment of fault and trust in unconditional pardon, several of the English included a moment of moral renewal. In harmony with Reformed tendencies on the Continent and in unmistakable continuity with historic Catholic doctrine that tied “contrition, by definition, to the intention to amend,” they required an actual change in penitent. For them, a renewal of moral resolve was integral to the penitential experience, and a few included the manifest alteration of behavior. They agreed that moral will or effort cannot merit forgiveness, yet rang variations on the theme that repentance is ‘an inward sorrow . . . whereunto is also added a desire to frame our life in all points according to the holy will of God .’ However qualified by reference to the divine initiative and by denial of efficacy to human works, such teaching underscored moral responsibility; it also adumbrated Puritan penitential and preparationist teaching of later decades.”
In the old school worldview, pietism has its limited place. But if you give pietism an inch, it wants to take a mile.
LikeLike
It’s outside your main point, Dr. Hart, but I’ve noticed that folks often point out the 19th century roots of worldview (faux paux!), but rarely give any bibliographical direction for exploring the history of that phenomenon. For us undergraduate philosophy majors who were too busy reading Plato and Machiavelli to get to German idealism, do you have any helpful recommendations? In particular, a book that might do a nice job of summarizing German idealism and its players, while also giving the setting and function of “Weltanschauung”?
LikeLike
D.G. Hart: Historians may not be rocket scientists, but they can generally outwit the smartest of their interlocutors simply by knowing the origins of an idea, event, person, or argument. This is not to say that those who talk to historians understand when historical knowledge trumps philosophy, exegesis, or ideology. Some people are so committed to abstract truths that their ideas are impervious to concrete facts. But historians enjoy an advantage in debate thanks to clay feet that all historical actors (short of being divine persons) have.
For instance, knowing that w— v— thinking began at a certain date in the modern era, or that dramatic conversions are not much older, has an effect on claims that these are timeless truths revealed in holy writ. This historical awareness even extends to ideas that Old Lifers promote such as the spirituality of the church. The historical origins of an idea or truth doesn’t mean it is wrong. It only means it is not timeless and so perhaps its connections to the Bible are less certain.
RS: A truly disturbing point of view. Historians are also afflicted with the effects of the fall. Historians suffer from myopia and delusion too. Historians are dependent on making deductions from limited points of view as well. Historians are afflicted with self-centeredness and perhaps self-importance. Historians can be afflicted with man-centered thinking or human oriented thinking. History is not a study of bare or bald facts, but it also depends a lot on the person interpreting things as well.
LikeLike
mark mcculley:
(Theodore Dwight Bozeman, The Precisianist Strain, p 20-21
“English penitential teaching expressly echoed and bolstered moral priorities. In contrast, again, to Luther, whose penitential teaching stressed the rueful sinner’s attainment of peace through acknowledgment of fault and trust in unconditional pardon, several of the English included a moment of moral renewal. In harmony with Reformed tendencies on the Continent and in unmistakable continuity with historic Catholic doctrine that tied “contrition, by definition, to the intention to amend,” they required an actual change in penitent. For them, a renewal of moral resolve was integral to the penitential experience, and a few included the manifest alteration of behavior. They agreed that moral will or effort cannot merit forgiveness, yet rang variations on the theme that repentance is ‘an inward sorrow . . . whereunto is also added a desire to frame our life in all points according to the holy will of God .’ However qualified by reference to the divine initiative and by denial of efficacy to human works, such teaching underscored moral responsibility; it also adumbrated Puritan penitential and preparationist teaching of later decades.”
In the old school worldview, pietism has its limited place. But if you give pietism an inch, it wants to take a mile.
RS: Isaiah 57:15 For thus says the high and exalted One Who lives forever, whose name is Holy, “I dwell on a high and holy place, And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit In order to revive the spirit of the lowly And to revive the heart of the contrite.
Isaiah 66:2 “For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being,” declares the LORD. “But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.
The Bible does speak rather highly of contrition. By definition repenting of falling short of the glory of God is to live for the glory of God. God commands His people turn from being fruitless to bearing fruit, but of course the only true fruit that can be borne has to come from Christ.
LikeLike
John Fesko: In Romans 8:23 we read that we, “Who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” Here Paul explicitly relates the forensic category of adoption to the redemption of the body, or the resurrection from the dead (cf. Luke 20:35).
Believers have the “firstfruits of the Spirit,” which is essentially synonymous with the word arrabōn, which Paul uses to describe the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit as guarantee of the believer’s future resurrection (2 Cor. 5:5; Eph. 1:4). Romans 8:23 means that we will be declared sons of God by the resurrection of our bodies, when what is sown perishable is raised imperishable (1 Cor. 15:42-44).
Just as Christ was declared to be the son of God by his resurrection, those who are legally in Christ will likewise be declared to be sons of God. When we consider that the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23), then those who are raised from the dead are righteous in the sight of God.
“For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked” (2 Cor. 5:2-3). To be naked is to be in the state of shame and guilt. The resurrection of the believer, then, is a de facto declaration of righteousness because death has no claim upon those who are righteous (1 Cor. 15:55-57).
In the resurrection there is already wrapped up a judging-process, for those who have already been justified: the raising act in their case, together with the attending change, plainly involves a pronouncement of vindication.
The resurrection of the elect is not the penultimate event prior to the final judgment; the resurrection is the final declaration.
LikeLike
A godly contrition (repentance) can come only in light of the Gospel wherein Christ and His righteousness is revealed as the only difference between saved and lost . This godly contrition includes new knowledge concerning the character of God (Who He is) and concerning the one and only reason God is just in justifying the ungodly elect.
This godly contrition is a change of mind concerning our best religious efforts to remove the guilt and defilement of sin, our old efforts to recommend ourselves to God, our deeds motivated in the interests of attaining, maintaining, and entitling us to salvation.
The Apostle Paul illustrates this clearly in Philippians 3:3-10. In true Gospel contrition a sinner comes to see and trust that Christ’s righteousness alone entitles him to all of salvation, including the subjective work of the Spirit, BEFORE he makes any efforts to obey God and persevere.
The godly contrite come to see that before faith in the true gospel, his best efforts at obedience, all that he highly esteemed and thought was profitable in recommending him unto God, is no more than “dung” (Philippians 3:7-8) in contrast with Christ’s obedience to death.
What he before thought was pleasing unto God and works of the Spirit, the contrite person now sees as “flesh” (Philippians 3:3-4). What he once highly esteemed, he is now ashamed of it (Romans 6:21) and now, in light of the Gospel, counts it as fruit unto death, DEAD WORKS, and evil deeds.
The contrite person now sees that before believing that Christ’s righteousness alone entitled him to all of salvation, his thoughts of God were all wrong. In repentance, the contrite person turns from that old Arminian idol to serve the true and living God (1 Thessalonians 1:9).
This kind of true godly contrition can only come in light of the Gospel as it takes this light to expose the sin that deceives us all by nature (John 3:19-20). Before we hear and believe the Gospel we are all deceived by sin (Romans 7:11). The sin that deceives us all by nature is not our immorality,but trusting in our trusting and contrition. We come to repent of our old evil repentance.
LikeLike
mark mcculley: A godly contrition (repentance) can come only in light of the Gospel wherein Christ and His righteousness is revealed as the only difference between saved and lost . This godly contrition includes new knowledge concerning the character of God (Who He is) and concerning the one and only reason God is just in justifying the ungodly elect.
Examples from Scripture:
Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
Acts 16:29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, 30 and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
Two examples of those who were very, very alarmed over their lost condition. The first example let to 3,000 being baptized in one day.
LikeLike
Brad and David Yoder have vowed a vow to bring me back a prayer blessed handkerchief back from Greeneville, since I won’t be able to go. Now its up to you to swear an oath to give them one. Halaluuuuuya!
LikeLike
David, did you go out of your way to teach chap. 22, or were you simply going through the Confession?
LikeLike
Chris, it is likely charitable to say that everyone went beyond Calvin. The question is who started and the other is how far, though I’d put the sixteenth century more generally as the standard rather than Calvin himself.
LikeLike
David, Y. thanks for the links. I doubt I’ll finish the series before the conference.
LikeLike
Barb, I can certainly see the basis in Scripture for some reflection on oaths. But I still find it curious to show up the way it does in the Westminster Standards compared to the Three Forms, the Helvetic Confessions, or the Gallican or Scottish Confessions.
LikeLike
emem, I do my part to keep reminding John Frame of his vows.
LikeLike
Geoff, do I have a set of convictions and opinions? Of course. Do I have a w— v—, I’m not sure. Why I’m not sure is that it seems to require epistemological self-consciousness and I for one do not think any one is capable of such an enterprise, except maybe Descartes as he is thinking about how he knows. W— v— plays into the hands of philosophers, who are generally decent folk, but not the top link in the great chain of knowing.
I don’t mean to sound flippant. But the word has been bandied about for so long that no one seems to be capable of thinking about where it came from or what its implications might be.
Bottom line: for me, faith and regeneration are not synonymous with w—v—.
LikeLike
McMark, thanks for the Bozemen quote.
LikeLike
Richard, historians do suffer from all those things. But if they also know that the idea that you think is ancient is really of recent vintage, then they know something valuable and you don’t. That kind of knowledge could lead you to qualify some of your judgments.
BTW, do you really want to keep asserting that Christ is in the believer? Don’t you want to say it’s Christ’s Spirit that is in the believer because Christ does sit at the father’s right hand? And don’t you want to talk about the Spirit’s presence in a way that avoids theosis? And what about abiding sin?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
I’ve been teaching through the Confession of Faith of the OPC for about a year and a half (I should finish next month). So chapter 22 simply came after chapter 21.
David
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, historians do suffer from all those things. But if they also know that the idea that you think is ancient is really of recent vintage, then they know something valuable and you don’t. That kind of knowledge could lead you to qualify some of your judgments.
RS: One problem, however, is that the historian may not have access to a complete knowledge and could be mistaken on that issue. The real issue, however, and this is according to the Confessions as well, is that the final authority on all matters is Scripture.
D.G. Hart: BTW, do you really want to keep asserting that Christ is in the believer?
RS: Yes, of course I do. Galatians 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
Colossians 1:27 to whom God willed to make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
D.G. Hart: Don’t you want to say it’s Christ’s Spirit that is in the believer because Christ does sit at the father’s right hand?
RS: Jesus Christ is a divine Person with two natures. The divine nature is as fully God as the Father and the Holy Spirit, thus He is as omnipresent.
D.G. Hart: And don’t you want to talk about the Spirit’s presence in a way that avoids theosis?
RS: It depends on how one uses the terms. If it is used to describe what happens when Christ is in the soul and the soul is in Christ and therefore II Peter 1:4 (For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent promises, so that by them you may become partakers of the divine nature), then no. If one means that a person actually becomes god in some way, then of course one would want to avoid that. But I don’t believe that Athanasius believed option two, though he has been accused of that.
D.G. Hart: And what about abiding sin?
RS: Of course we have remaining sin and we are far worse than we realize, but that does not negate the very important teaching that Christ is the life of His people.
LikeLike
At Regent University School of Law, I’ve regularly taught (albeit only for 10+ minutes) on oaths and vows–and their distinction from contracts–when I come to U.C.C. 2-615 (“Commercial Impracticability”) in my Sales Law class.
LikeLike
Ken, I’m not really sure, but David Naugle’s Worldview, the History of a Concept might give you tips on what philosophical works to consult.
LikeLike
My guess is that various confessions have a lot in them about oaths because most of these confessions were constructed for (and with the financial support of) the magistrates, or at least addressed to the magistrates. A lot of folks wanted to make sure that the king did not confuse them with anabaptists. And the nonviolent anabaptists wanted to make sure that they were identified with seditionists.
I am looking for historical essays written about this question, so if anybody can’t point me to a survey of the circumstances. I have Mark Noll’s book.
John Calvin has some ambivalence on about how secret Reformed Christians in France should try to be. Why go out of your way to look for martyrdom? On the other hand, an open confession could possibly end confusions so at least you won’t be persecuted for something you are not.
When they come for the anabaptists, we don’t need to fear that they will come for us next. What we need to do is explain how we are not anabaptists.
LikeLike
Ken, check this out. Clark was supposed to write a book but I don’t think it ever happened.
Gregory A. Clark, “The Nature of Conversion: How the Rhetoric of Worldview Philosophy Can Betray Evangelicals,” in Evangelicals and Liberals in Conversation, ed. Timothy R. Phillips and Dennis Okholm (Downers Grove: IVP, 1996), 218.
mcmark: Jesus Christ, both in His person and in His work, is not a worldview. But lots of folks care more about what they think about ” justice” than they care about the atonement of Jesus for elect sinners. Instead of being satisfied by the justice revealed in the gospel, they want to force other people to be patriotic and to take the necessary oaths patriotism involves. In the old days, that of course included infant baptism by the parish priest.
That coercion is bad enough in itself, but even worse when it’s done in the name of Jesus Christ.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart wrote:
“Geoff, do I have a set of convictions and opinions? Of course. Do I have a w— v—, I’m not sure. Why I’m not sure is that it seems to require epistemological self-consciousness and I for one do not think any one is capable of such an enterprise, except maybe Descartes as he is thinking about how he knows. W— v— plays into the hands of philosophers, who are generally decent folk, but not the top link in the great chain of knowing.”
GW: Ummm….I’m not quite sure I follow you here, so forgive me if I draw incorrect conclusions from your statements (and please correct me if I’ve done so). You seem to equate “w–v–” with “epistemological self-consciousness.” And by this term you seem to have in mind an alleged hyper-philosophising found in certain strands or expressions of Van Tillian presuppositionalism. But other Christian thinkers besides Van Tillians use the terminology and concept of “worldview.” And in my previous post here I defined for you how I was using the term: A “conceptual structure” or theological paradigm by which we view the world. Clearly the biblical theology revealed in Holy Scripture provides us with just such a conceptual structure or “worldview” – namely, creation-fall-redemption-new creation. That is the basic biblical “worldview,” and if you accept the Westminster Standards (which flesh out this biblical worldview in great detail from a Reformed and covenantal perspective), then you yourself have a functional “worldview” whether or not you like the term.
Furthermore, since this is a post on oaths and vows, as a church officer in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church you affirmed in your second ordination vow that you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this church as containing the “system of doctrine” taught in the Holy Scriptures. Since you believe and affirm that the Scriptures teach a “system of doctrine” you affirm a particular understanding of the biblical “worldview.” And insofar as your thinking and writing are consciously informed by that biblical and confessional system of doctrine (which informs you that you are a creature made in the image of God, fallen in Adam, but redeemed by Christ and renewed by the Spirit), it would seem to me that to that extent you are “epistemologically self-conscious.”
Sorry, Dr. Hart, but like it or not it seems to me that you too have a “w–v–“. 🙂
LikeLike
Geoff, that’s funny that you claim my ordination vows as the basis for a w—v—. I tried to argue with Frame in our debate on worship that my ordination vows did function in precisely this way, as a kind of presupposition, which informed how I should understand any number of circumstances, especially in the church. He didn’t buy it. He was even a bit shocked to hear that I would regard a confession this way.
So maybe your definition of w—v— doesn’t measure up, especially with the Hegelians and post-Hegelians.
LikeLike
If we are going to have a tyranny of definitions, Geoff, let me stipulate that all who now think they have a worldview really have a “system of doctrine”. I would say sorry, but I don’t see what Kuyperians or (Talbot-Morelanders) have to lose. Unless of course embedded in the very word “worldview” is a distinct “worldview”.
When Niebuhr did his typology on culture, each type was designed to prove his conclusion (there is one culture and it must be transformed). Even so, if the worldview folks have to give up the word “worldview”,perhaps they can learn to stop begging the question
Which is it?
Everybody has a worldview?
Them folks only have gospel and they also need a worldview?
Them folks have a liturgy and a worldview, but they are too dumb (not self-conscious like I am) to know it. And also they have the wrong liturgy and worldview.
Or as James K Smith would have it:
Isn’t your liturgy a worldview?
or, isn’t having a worldview a liturgy?
LikeLike
David Yoder, thank you for the URLs on oathes/vows. Thank God for Reformed confessionalists.
Others, I trust this link and story by Darryl will have a significant shelf-life. David, I have some listening to do on your links.
Darryl, a few further divagatory musings. (1) On my end, more research needed on the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud. Aside from his Arminianism which he advanced “institutionally” (he ran afoul of the Calvinists at Oxford), he introduced, developed, extended and “enforced” numerous liturgical pieties that went well beyond the 1559 Book of Common Prayer. Genuflections, bowings at the name of Jesus in the Creed, praying eastwards, and more. These were things pruned by Cranmer and upheld by Parker, Grindal, Whitgift and Bancroft. An interesting element to investigate is the degree to which “Old Billy” offended BCP Anglicans “themselves” (never mind Puritans, dissenters, Brownists, etc.). Laud really introduced “novelties” at the time. Then, enforced them. The instrument of Laud was the “oath” to the King as he understood it…requiring conformity. Background on oaths for WCF? Laud’s repressions, of necessity, could not have escaped the Westminsterians. (2) That grand, thoughtful, learned and Calvinistic Archbishop James Ussher was invited to the Westminster Assembly. Of all things, this Bishop said he’d be as comfortable in a Dutch Calvinistic service of communion as he would be in his own. (The very language of his Irish Articles, 1615, informs the “very” language of the WCF.) But, based upon Ussher’s “oath” to King Charles 1, he felt he could not participate in the assembly. Again, an “oath” in historical context. (3) In a more biblical direction, the need to rethink “oaths” and “vows” in light of current readings for Feb-Mar from the 1662 BCP. Exodus-Deut, twice through the Psalms, Matt-Luke, as well as lections for Holy Communion. Here’s the point. “Covenant theology,” Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants as divine oaths. Ditto for the Gospels. Loci: God, humanity, Christ, redemption, church and final things are under review with the term “oaths” and “covenants.” (4) In another direction. “Oaths” as recorded in the Constitution for North Carolina that are still on record and unrepealed. Will chat with a Federal Judge over the next few weeks about our state Constitution. Last time it was read (by me), it sounded like a theological document from the 17th century when NC was developing under Royal governance. From previous interloctions, I know the Judge thinks that these “oaths” have not been amended or repealed due to Southern Baptists’ hegemony and the fear of political backlash. Darry, good post and hope it has a long shelf-life.
Here endeth the divagatory and undisciplined musings.
Regards to all.
LikeLike
Geoff, “worldview” in the current conversation means more than “has some thoughts that more or less hang together based on core beliefs.” I’ve elsewhere spoken of the five points of worldviewism: 1) a rejection of the sacred/secular distinction, 2) an assertion that the scriptures inform all of life, 3) a declaration that Christ’s redemptive work applies to political, social, and cultural matters, 4) a call for the Christian to transform politics and culture based on the scriptures and, related to but distinct from #2, 5) everything has a moral implication.
This idea of worldview tends to demand epistemological self-consciousness as if it were a command. It tends to raise up what happens Monday through Saturday and lower what happens on Sunday. It doesn’t fit well with the repeated confessional phrase “light of nature” and also has problems with the confessional idea that some things are “beside” the scriptures.
In this sense John Frame’s worldviewism is clashing with Escondido’s 2k.
I’ve started to lay out some of this if you’re interested: http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/category/worldview/
LikeLike
Michael, will start following your blogposts. Thanks for the lead and the URL. Keep them coming. A Westminsterian man or woman cannot help but be involved along several fronts and along several disciplines. That goes with being a Westminsterian Churchperson. I can’t imagine a single WTC-CA Professor advising otherwise. Those august dictums, or dicta, from the WLC informs our daily labours. While we do not expect our clerics to be exegetes of culture, yet, we do expect our Churchpersons and parishioners in their varied callings to work out their WLC-callings. On its face, this is preliminary and basic.
LikeLike
I’d be honored, Viking.
Have you given your assessment of the reinstatement of Mahaney to Sovereign Grace Ministries?
LikeLike
Eegads, Michael Mann, re: Mahaney and his “reinstatement”, that’s another story. A long one. A sad one.
I’m sitting on a 30-pg review, but have not posted it. One that should be told. My view? SGM circled the wagons, exonerrated the master, and sung “Home, Home, on the Range, where N’er a Discouraging Word was Heard….” Did TG4 ask for a clarifying word? Where’s Justin Taylor? Justin, where are you, investigatively, as you read here? Did Al Mohler ask for clarifications? Al, where are your investigating inquries? Where is Mark Dever? Where’s Sproul. Sr., my own mentor? Did the Rev. Dr. Carl Trueman, of Wesminster Seminary, my alma mater, seek clarifications. Did Revd’s Ortlund or DeYoung seek investigative and adversarily cross-examinations? Or, Tim Challies, where are you? The bell of inquriy continues.
Mahaney is a Baptacostalist, pure and simple. Further, he is an idiot and simpleton.
Michael, I may publish my 30-page review of these revisionist Baptacostalists and Baptacostaholics…and other hand-wavers, hyper-enthusiasts, and anti-intellectualists.
Quite a story. More largely, why, pray tell does C.J. Mahaney appear on the “Board of Reference” for the “Alliance of Confessing of Evangelicals?” This question cannot be ignored, diminished or dismissed. Why does Lig Duncan support Mahaney on the Board of Reference? Let Duncan tell the whole story.
Why do SGM publications appear on Westminster Seminary’s website? Who’s running WTS’s website?
LikeLike
Michael Mann:
To revise and extend, why has T4G not investigated and commented on the SGM-situation report?
Taylor, why not? Taylor, why not? Why and where is/are Drs. Trueman, Duncan and other Baptyerians such as Sproul, Sr, an advocate of Baptyerians? Trueman, where are you? Challies, where are you, the ubiquitous and omnipresent blogger? http://www.challies.com. Trueman, where is the rigourous and investigative cross-examination of Mahaney? To conclude, where are the TG4ers and Westminsterians? Dr. Trueman, give us a sense of a response.
More largely. Rev. Dr. Ortluand, where are the investigative questions? Did we get any of these from you? Dever, the same questionsapply? Very good questions, indeed, but without answers. A 30-year history is under review with Mahaney.
Why has/does WTS-PA sell Mahaney/SGM volumes? More good questions, again, without answers. Michael, will Ligonier or WTS-PA answer us? Not holding the breath here…Ligonier is Baptacostalistic, not Confessionalist.
To all: Dr. Darryl Hart has asked us a substantive questions of history and theology. Darryl, thank you. Thank you to other respondents. Regards to all. DPV.
LikeLike
Michael:
Issues of oaths and vows.
We should not get investigative reports on the neo-Baptacastolistic, neo-Montanistic and neo-Baptacostalists.
The wider and expansive question exists re: “vows and oaths.”
LikeLike
Michael Mann wrote:
“Geoff, “worldview” in the current conversation means more than “has some thoughts that more or less hang together based on core beliefs.” I’ve elsewhere spoken of the five points of worldviewism: 1) a rejection of the sacred/secular distinction, 2) an assertion that the scriptures inform all of life, 3) a declaration that Christ’s redemptive work applies to political, social, and cultural matters, 4) a call for the Christian to transform politics and culture based on the scriptures and, related to but distinct from #2, 5) everything has a moral implication.
“This idea of worldview tends to demand epistemological self-consciousness as if it were a command. It tends to raise up what happens Monday through Saturday and lower what happens on Sunday. It doesn’t fit well with the repeated confessional phrase “light of nature” and also has problems with the confessional idea that some things are “beside” the scriptures.”
GW: Thanks, Michael, for your clarifications about how the term “worldview” is being used in this intramural Reformed discussion & debate. I guess my point is that the term itself has a legitimate use outside of the mircrocosm of the Reformed “2K vs. Framean ‘worldviewism’/ transformationism/epistemological self-consciousness” debate; indeed, that it is in fact understood and defined by other Christians in a way that would have little (if anything) in common with the “worldviewism” being criticized and opposed here. For example, back in 1976 Dr. James W. Sire (of InterVarsity Press) wrote a book entitled “The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog” (Downers Grove, Ill; Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press; the third edition is copyrighted 1997). In that book he explains and contrasts the “worldview” of “Christian Theism” with the “worldviews” of Deism, Naturalism, Nihilism, Existentialism, Eastern Pantheistic Monism, The New Age, and Postmodernism. I don’t think Sire’s explanation and definition of the “worldview” of “Christian Theism” in that book would find any objections here at Old Life, and he wrote his book decades before this more recent in-house Reformed debate/discussion over “worldviewism.”
LikeLike
Geoff, why do you think we need our children to attend a “Christian college” where they will be taught IVP “worldviewism”? Do we need more Francis Schaeffers to preach their combination of freewill “gospel” and art history?
Geoff, do you think everybody has a worldview?
Do you think that some people only have the gospel and that they also need a worldview?
Do you think some people have a liturgy and a worldview, but they are too dumb (not self-conscious like we are) to know it?
Or do you think some people have the wrong worldview?
Is this a matter of “perspective”?
John Frame thinks you need at least three.
LikeLike
Geoff, using a bit of irony I contend that these worldview elements tend to hang together. It’s like the Wild Kingdom: we need to watch how these critters behave over time.
Wasn’t Francis Schaeffer well into mainstreaming worldview when Sire wrote that book?
LikeLike
Geoff, as a historian (as opposed to an Old Lifer), I might well object to Sire because I am not as convinced as w—- v—-ers are about the power of ideas. I’m not sure ideas shape who I am — they have their place — and I definitely don’t see them having the direct payoff politically or socially that so many neo-Calvinists do. This is not anti-intellectual. Ideas matter. Doctrines matter. But human beings are more than minds. Societies are more than the organization of ideas.
LikeLike
Worldview may be flawed in part because of the unrepresentative sample it uses to prove itself. That is, it considers trends of theoretical, focused, philosophic thought and generalizes on that basis. But most of life is not theoretical, focused, and philosophic. Most of life is waking up, going to the bathroon, eating a bowl of cereal, reminding oneself to buy new razors, navigating traffic, saying hello to colleagues, etc. Then there are the tasks of employment which are generally performed by the same techniques and standards regardless of one’s ideology. If most of life is non-theoretical and lived by the light of nature, then surely the claims of worldview are vastly overstated.
LikeLike
D.G. Hart said:
“I’m not sure ideas shape who I am — they have their place — and I definitely don’t see them having the direct payoff politically or socially that so many neo-Calvinists do. This is not anti-intellectual. Ideas matter. Doctrines matter. But human beings are more than minds. Societies are more than the organization of ideas.”
GW: One author (not Frame or Bahnsen or any other advocate of what you label “worldviewism”) defines “worldview” as “a network of our most basic beliefs about reality in light of which all observations are interpreted.” In view of that definition, your statement that “Ideas matter. Doctrines matter. But human beings are more than minds. Societies are more than the organization of ideas.” – is itself an expression of a worldview (a set of basic beliefs about reality in light of which you interpret your observations about such topics as “worldviewism”), and your opposition to and argumentation against “w–v–” is itself rooted in your own anti-worldviewism worldview.
By the way, I agree with your statement. You are correct that we are more than the organization of ideas. We are creatures made in the image of God, fallen in Adam, redeemed in Christ, renewed by the Spirit, and called to live in faith and obedience in the fellowship of our Savior’s Body, the church — as our biblical and confessional worldview teaches us. But then again, I am not aware of anyone who teaches that “worldview” equals the belief that societies are but the organization of ideas; that implied allegation seems to me to be either a misunderstanding on your part or a straw man. (But, then again, I could be wrong, since I’m not as well-read on these matters as you are. Perhaps you could provide me with some references to quotes by “w–v–” advocates to the effect that societies are but the organization of ideas?)
To say that all of us have a “worldview” is not to say that we do everything we do in daily life with our “worldview” consciously in view at the forefront of our minds. Our worldview often functions below the surface, and we often act in accord with our worldview non-reflectively, almost instinctively. But, as Jesus said, “by their fruits you shall know them.” Our thoughts, words and actions reflect and manifest both the state of our heart (whether we be a “good tree” or a “bad tree,” regenerate or unregenerate) and our basic worldview (which informs our decisions and actions, among other things, and which itself flows from the state of our heart).
LikeLike
Geoff, it seems that you have a construct that is incapable of being verified or falsified. It would also be hard to make out the case that the biblical fruit and tree metaphor is based on Kantian epistemology.
Worldview gives an unrealistic priority to philosophic thought as the basis of our actions. It assumes way more intellectual consistency than is realistic. In real life intellectual consistency is not as powerful as relationships, wishful thinking, personal history, emotions and any number of human idiosyncracies. We aren’t hard drives on legs.
Then, if worldview has the potency that you attribute to it, there would be a much more coherence within alleged worldview groups. But if you could detail any given person’s declarations, thoughts and actions, you wouldn’t find a small number of “worldviews,” you would find one worldview per customer. But then worldview doesn’t really mean much any more.
There has been enough time for worldview to deliver a lot of its goods – therefore establishing itself – but it isn’t really working out. It posits a connection between presuppositions and macro-ideas that seem plausible but hasn’t delivered many specifics. Or, if you think it has delivered specifics I’d be interested to know what they are.
LikeLike
MM said:
“Worldview gives an unrealistic priority to philosophic thought as the basis of our actions.”
Philosophic thought is just a person’s view of knowledge, reality, and experience. So when you say:
“In real life intellectual consistency is not as powerful as relationships, wishful thinking, personal history, emotions and any number of human idiosyncracies. We aren’t hard drives on legs.”
You’re expressing a philosophic thought… and giving priority to one form of philosophic thought… sounds like phenomenology… over another philosophic thought… namely idealism. Since nihilism is a self-defeating philosophy and not actually possible (see The Big Lebowski)… you’re perhaps calling for a modified nihilism… in the way Nietzsche said Christianity was nihilistic?
LikeLike
GAS “Philosophic thought is just a person’s view of knowledge, reality, and experience”
GAS, your definition of “philosophic thought” appears to be “any thought.”
A recognition of the complexity of human beings and their behavior is not nihilism. But maybe you are doing an exercise in reductionism.
I would thnk you would be sensitive to worldviewism, given the talk in some quarters that Paul doesn’t have one. But that talk just shows that worldviewism is not objective but has an appended agenda of transforming.
LikeLike
Geoff, the world of evangelical publishing is filled with accounts of the West that trace the downfall of Christianity to the influence of bad philosophy. Francis Schaeffer popularized this. But Dutch neo-Calvinism also made a specialty of blaming the ideas of the French Revolution for practically every social evil to arise in the 19th century and beyond.
I am glad you concede that we can not live self-consciously all the time. But what your understanding of fruit does not address is that believers have abiding sin and so my heart manifests rotten fruit along with good. In which case, according to your account, I suppose the believer has competing w— v—-s going on all the time, sort of like the apostle Paul in Romans 7.
LikeLike
GAS, emem beat me to it, but your account of philosophy is remarkably egalitarian and spits in the eye of any person who has endured seminars in Kant’s ontology.
LikeLike
GAS – not purposesly distorting your definition, as I see you have some limitation. But I still think it’s overbroad.
Re: nihilism, I am saying more about the complexity and non-irreducible nature of people than our ability to know truth, the existence of truth, etc.
LikeLike
“Re: nihilism, I am saying more about the complexity and non-irreducible nature of people than our ability to know truth, the existence of truth, etc.”
MM, when I read that I read: the complexity and non-irreducible nature of people affect our ability to know truth, the existence of truth, etc.
Or am I misreading you?
LikeLike
GAS, let me try this approach: Worldview, so we are told, puts a philosophic tint on all incoming data and then puts out thoughts and activities with the same tint. But what if some incoming data is received with a charge of emotion, or bias, or a childhood memory: no tint, or a different tint. As for the outgoing thoughts and activites, many are intuitive, habitual, sentimental, or whatever. Our default state of mind is not philosophical, which worldviewism seems to assume. Photoshop can take any picture and give you the same image only blue. People aren’t like that.
I’m not here focused on intentional philosophic activity and what we can know when we do that.
LikeLike
MM, with all due respect, I don’t see how you resolved the chicken and the egg problem. If you’re complaint is that some worldviewists are too absolutists in putting the egg before the chicken then I would agree. This is the Hegelian construct and it is wrong in it’s conclusions. OTOH, those that would put the chicken before the egg seem to me to be naive or nihilistic. Perhaps we can agree it is a both/and scenario?
It appears to me there is a dialectic between the micro and the macro that is undeniable. If you got time check out Gary North’s latest article, especially the beginning part, and let me know what you think.
LikeLike
GAS, let’s focus on people. You could say that I’m complaining about the artifiical anthropology of worldview that supposes everyone is a consistent quasi-philosopher. If they aren’t, it all unravels.
I would go further and say it is the very rare person who even strives for ideological consistency, much less achieves it. Then, the person who does strive for consistency only does some part-time, because no-one is 24*7 analytic.
LikeLike
MM, wouldn’t the kuyperians agree with you that most people do not “strive for ideological consistency” but merely rely upon the construct of the “world spirit” that exists at the time? As Bob Dylan says, you gotta serve somebody.
As i said before, nihilism is impossible, people are going to rationalize their actions according to some construct. I’m reminded of the scene in The Big Lebowski when the nihilists complain about fairness and Walter, in his inimitable way says, “who’s the %$#@! nihilists around here”?
Consistency? No, no one is ever going to be 100% consistent. But don’t we catechize our kids so that they have a construct in the back of their mind? Not that we expect them to self consciously think of the catechism in every action they take but that those general principles guide them in their actions subconsciously? So it seems to me that the only difference between the confessionalist and the kuyperian is the extent of the construct.
LikeLike
GAS, you might have a point, but have you hung around many neo-Kuyperians lately? I have, and catechism is, at best, a quaint thing the old timers used to do. Curriculum is the new catechism because worldview really isn’t fostered as well by catechism as it is curriculum. So where you might see the only difference between the confessionalist and the (neo) Kuyperian is the extent of the construct, from where I sit in Little Geneva the difference is between those who still practice the old churchly patterns of covenantal nurture and those who have done and continue to do their level best to get away from those irrelevant practices. It’s the difference between confessionalists and eeeevangelicals. Which is actually quite huge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Zrim, viewed from afar I think you have a point. But that’s a different question. In what ways have the neos shifted from the originals and why?
LikeLike
GAS, I don’t see why nihilism is the alternative to worldview. The world was around for a long time prior to the concept of worldview.
And why is worldview necessary? It is revealed that there is a God and that he has certain attributes. His commands tell me not to be an idolater, not to murder, not to steal, etc. Preaching and the Westminster standards further tell me who God is, who I am, etc. I can go further into systematic theology and numerous other helps. I don’t see what worldview offers except to change the conversation from “what has God said?” to “what is a coherent point of view?” And, along the lines of what Zrim said, it actually seems to compete with and even supplant that content which is closer to the source and more specific.
Look at the worldview literature and notice how the Church is little more than a footnote. I’m sure it is considerably more than that from the divine perspective. There you have the levelling effect of worldview rather than the biblical and confessional idea of the special.
LikeLike
GAS, I’m not sure why it’s a different question, since you brought up confessionalists and Kuyperians and catechesis and worldview more or less in the same breath. But in terms of how the neos are moving away from the originals, you might take a look at what the CRC is thinking of doing with the Form of Subscription. The effort has the effect of saying that the old forms are no longer so much binding and authoritative as just useful and helpful. How evangelical. After all, who really needs these things when you have Christian schools, where anything resembling catechesis is an elective and world religions is required?
LikeLike
MM: “The world was around for a long time prior to the concept of worldview.”
Disagree. Even the most ancient pagan cultures had some form of cosmology.
MM: “And why is worldview necessary?”
Because people need to make sense of existence otherwise there would be a helluva lot more suicides. So even if people accept a worldview that is completely irrational it stills gives them meaning to exist.
MM: “I don’t see what worldview offers except to change the conversation from “what has God said?” to “what is a coherent point of view?””
I get your point. All this philosophizing is screwing things up. But wasn’t there much philosophizing that went into creating the confessions? Didn’t Luther and Calvin do their fair share of philosophizing? What about Augustine?
But what if the problem with kuyperianism is that it is incoherent at a critical point? What if the problem is that the relationship between particular grace and common grace was ambiguous from the beginning? What if Kuyper, while trying to carve out an autonomous domain for common grace, still wanted particular grace to still reign supreme? What if Kuypers heirs instead used Kuypers doctrine of common grace and it’s view of culture and involvement in culture as existing alongside faith in God’s particular grace? Wouldn’t that look like where the CRC is today?
So the problem isn’t worldview per se, but how that worldview is constructed.
LikeLike
GAS,
Even the most ancient pagan cultures had some form of cosmology.
I get where you are going here, and in the sense that all peoples have a view of the world, they have a worldview. But this notion is also a bit anachronistic, but inasmuch as worldview or weltanshauung is the formulae of 19th century continental philosophers, the ancients didn’t have an epistemologically self-conscious view of the world, as their cosmologies were simply unquestioned givens. In some sense I see the debate as one over semantics, but on a broader plane, debunking “worldview-ism” has much more to do with the fact that one’s view of the world isn’t as thought out as it is made out to be, because so much of worldview is determined by factors that go far beyond knowing why one believes or thinks as they do – there are cultural, familial, and personal inputs that defy self-conscious categories.
I don’t consider myself as someone who is “anti-worldview” but the place it figures in modern iterations of Christianity and Reformed Christianity in particular seems to gloss over the fact that a good deal of how we approach and interpret the world around us has less to do with self-conscious processes, and more to do with innate beliefs which come to us from a variety of places. I simply approach “worldview” as something that functions as a descriptive task, telling us what people believe and think, and why; and not something that can ever be used as a uniform label. So when we speak of “Christian” or “Reformed” worldviews, I am more inclined to think that this construct actually says less about what one thinks of this world than many others would claim to the otherwise. The fact of the matter is these labels simply do not account for the diversity in these ideologies well enough to mean much on a definitional level. This is why I find labels like “confessional Reformed”, “2k”, “neo-Calvinist”, “Reformed Baptist”, and “Nazarine” (et. al.) to be more helpful than clumping them all in together under the rubric of worldview since these labels are more descriptive and less ethereal than “worldview”.
LikeLike
GAS. “worldview” has the advantage of having an innocuous and apparently self-evident name. The metaphor of eyesight for conceptualization is powerful and persuasive. But in its most general sense it doesn’t say much. If we say someone is a Platonist, we’ve already said that person has a certain way of conceptualizing, so “Platonist worldview” informs us of very little.
What I’m contending for is that “worldview” in reformed and evangelical circles is not that inncocuous and self-evident sense of the word. It’s the hitchhiker with friends in the bushes, and they always hop in the car.
LikeLike
GAS, the search for coherence may actually be unbiblical (which certainly raises the stakes about w— v—). What if God is the only one with a coherent understanding of the world (after all, he’s the only one who sees it whole)? And what if the human effort to have a w—v— is an attempt to be like God? Not so good, huh. And then let’s add the 2k icing (with birthday reveries still in view). Paul says that Greek philosophy is folly from the perspective of the cross, and vice versa. The wisdom of the world is wise, but it runs up against the wisdom of the cross. Christians should actually be double-minded rather than coherent as they go through this life. Only in glory, possibly, will w—v— be fitting.
LikeLike
GAS, if there was so much philosophizing that went into creating the confessions then why are they only footnoted with Scripture? After all, and as dgh points out, Paul didn’t push back on the wisdom of this world with more of the same but employed holy writ to bring the cross to bear on glory. And if what the CRC looks like today is the model for the end of Kuyperianism, that should be enough to give pause on any attempt to construct Reformed world-and-life worldview, unless you think cultural Christianity is a good thing.
LikeLike