Why John Calvin Was No Neo-Calvinist (and pass the Paxil)

Published on by D. G. Hart5 Comments

Now our blockishness arises from the fact that our minds, stunned by the empty dazzlement of riches, power, and honors, become so deadened that they can see no farther. The heart also, occupied with avarice, ambition, and lust, is so weighed down that it cannot rise up higher. In fine, the whole soul, enmeshed in the allurements of the flesh, seeks its happiness on earth. To counter this evil the Lord instructs his followers in the vanity of the present life by continual proof of its miseries. . . .
     Then only do we rightly advance in the discipline of the cross, when we learn that this life, judged by itself, is troubled, turbulent, unhappy in countless ways, and in no respect clearly happy; that all those things which are judged to be its goods are uncertain, fleeting, vain, and vitiated by many intermingled evils. From this, at the same time, we conclude that in this life we are to seek and hope for nothing but struggle; when we think of our crown, we are to raise our eyes to heaven. For this we must believe: that the mind is never seriously aroused to desire and ponder the life to come unless it be previously imbued with contempt for the present life.

Institutes, III.ix.1

If Guilt "Causes" Corruption . . .

Published on by D. G. Hart58 Comments

. . . why can’t innocence “cause” moral renovation?

Article 9 of the French Confession of Faith (in which Calvin played a large role) affirms: “We believe that man was created pure and perfect in the image of God, and that by his own guilt he fell from the grace which he received, and is thus alienated from God, the fountain of justice and of all good, so that his nature it totally corrupt.”

This assertion, which implies the priority of the forensic to moral degeneracy, only makes sense of the idea that man was created with a good and upright nature. If Adam’s guilt proceeded from corruption then his original nature could not be perfect and pure.

So why is it a problem to talk about a similar relationship between the forensic and the renovative in the remedy for sin, namely, salvation? Why is it wrong to assert that the removal of guilt, the declaration of innocence, causes or results in the removal of corruption?

Of course, the language of causality is a bit rough and simplistic — but no more rough or simplistic as saying that union with Christ “causes” justification and sanctification. Actually, in a monergistic scheme, God is the cause of every part of salvation. But in trying to discern the relationship among the aspects of salvation, asserting the priority of the forensic to the renovative does not appear to be an obvious problem or error. It would seem actually to follow symmetrically from the doctrine of the fall.

This would seem to be the point of the Belgic Confession, Article 24, which says that without justifying faith, men “would never do anything out of love to God.” It also asserts: “For it is by faith in Christ that we are justified, even before we do good works, otherwise they could not be good works any more than the fruit of a tree can be good before the tree itself is good.”

(Disclaimer: this post is not necessarily the view of the NTJ or its editors. What are blogs for?)

So You Don't Need a Brown Paper Bag

Published on by D. G. Hart1 Comment

(From NTJ, January  1998)

Nicotine of Hippo 

   We recently heard a wonderful suggestion about the name of our journal, one that might help readers who want their church libraries to take the NTJ but fear what other church members will make of the title and its association with the evil weed. Why not tell your church librarian about what a wonderful publication the NTJ is, how it is chock-full of wisdom and carries a style of argumentation rarely found in religious periodicals. Don’t say it’s smart alecky. When asked about the name, respond with as straight a face as possible that Nicotine is not what he or she thinks. Say that Nicotine is Augustine of Hippo’s obscure younger brother, whose obscurity is almost complete thanks to the modern jehad against RJR/Nabisco. Add that if the church would readily subscribe to a journal named the Augustine Theological Journal then no one could possibly object to the Nicotine Theological Journal, a publication dedicated to the memory of the first Old School Presbyterian. And because Nicotine was African the NTJ will make your church library a multi-cultural place.

Also, make sure that when you pronounce our journal’s title you put the accent on the second, rather than the first syllable of nicotine (as in ni-CO-tine), and make the last “i” short (as in “tin”).

Actually, we have a better way for churches to subscribe to the NTJ short of violating the ninth commandment (as the Reformed count them). In response to great demand (actually one EPC pastor in Texas inquired) we are now offering bulk subscriptions for congregations. Churches that order between ten and fifty subscriptions may receive the NTJ for $4 per subscription. The rate goes down to $3 per subscription for orders over fifty.

(By the way, we need to give credit to George and Lucie Marsden who suggested the new derivation of Nicotine but who have yet to subscribe and so should not be accused of sharing the NTJ’s outlook or bad habits.)

A Journal By Any Other Name Would Be As Serious

Published on by D. G. Hart15 Comments

The Nicotine Theological Journal is a name that invites either a snicker or a wince. A self-conscious reference to the chief chemical in tobacco surely does not manifest sufficient seriousness about theology — hence the reactions of uncomfortable giggles or tisk-tisks implying we should act our age.

Here a little historical reminder may be in order. The editors grew up in an era of American Protestantism not too distant from the time when Harold John Ockenga, the founding president of Fuller Seminary and the National Association of Evangelicals, was publicly ridiculed for his behavior during a trip in 1947 to Europe. In his new book, The Surprising Work of God, Garth M. Rosell writes:

Throughout the months of autumn, . . . a flurry of letters arrived in Ockenga’s Park Street Church postbox asking if the rumors swirling about him were really true. ‘You are probably aware of the rumors relative to your personal actions while on the European trip this summer,’ wrote one concerned friend. Other letters added the specifics: that Ockenga had insisted on visiting the pope despite the objections of the Protestant clergy in Rome, that he had made ‘obeisance’ to the Pope when the delegation had visited him in the Vatican, that he was seen drinking ‘intoxicating liquor’ at meals and receptions, that he had attended the opera and theater in Paris, and that he had purchased ‘cigarettes in the P.X. and then sold them on the black market.

Continue reading “A Journal By Any Other Name Would Be As Serious” →

Is (or Was) Sam Walton Your Neighbor?

Published on by D. G. Hart19 Comments

(From NTJ, January 1998)

A report on NPR about a sermon by a priest in the Church of England prompted some thoughts about the implications of the Eighth Commandment. The news service copy indicated that this priest had told his parishioners that shoplifting from supermarket chains was not stealing. His reasoning was that such chains were putting the village food markets out of business and, thus, destroying the social fabric of English town life.

This priest’s teaching is not what we would prefer to hear in the pulpit. It does appear to be something of a stretch to say that shoplifting is not theft. And, no doubt, the character of English town life changed long before supermarkets and malls began to show up in the UK. Just ask the Luddites. But his admonishment does raise some interesting questions about how we observe the Eighth Commandment.

For instance, among the sins forbidden by this commandment, according to the Westminster Larger Catechism, are “oppression” and all “unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbor what belongs to him.” Which might mean that chains like WalMart, McDonalds and Winn Dixie, may actually excessively burden and deprive our neighbors who run local businesses from what would normally belong to them were it not for the consolidation of wealth in corporations and their ability to buy goods in mass quantities and distribute those goods throughout the world. As long as our only consideration in purchasing any item, from food to houses, is simply the lowest price, we will always be suckers for chains and the services they provide.

Continue reading “Is (or Was) Sam Walton Your Neighbor?” →

Mark Driscoll is Joining the Christian and Missionary Alliance

Published on by D. G. Hart64 Comments

Or so it seems on the basis of Driscoll’s recent post on the differences between the New and Old Calvinism.  (My, how pertinent the paleo/neo distinction has become.) 

According to Driscoll, the differences between Calvinism 1.0 and 8.2 are simple and short: 1) New Calvinism is missional; 2) it is urban; 3) it is charismatic; and 4) it is loving.  Old Calvinism, accordingly, is not these things.  (Do I feel loved?  Not really, but it doesn’t matter since New Calvinists are loving.) 

What Driscoll may not realize is that American Calvinists have been there and done that.  They did so in the person of  A. B. Simpson, a Canadian Presbyterian who ministered in the PCUSA, established urban missions and a training school (Nyack) in New York City, and was open to the emerging (couldn’t resist) Pentecostal revival.   The institutions Simpson founded, along with his teaching, formed the basis for the Christian and Missionary Alliance (1887).  (Before Keller, there was Simpson.)

So whether Driscoll knows it, he has a denominational home.  The upside is that Driscoll’s Calvinism could develop into the mature evangelical Protestantism of C&MA guru, A. W. Tozer, who could be remarkably perceptive about worship.  But just as likely the New Calvinism will go in a diferent direction because folks like Tozer and the C&MA are not new or hip.

What Would John Calvin Say to Rowan Williams, and to Billy Graham for that matter?

Published on by D. G. Hart31 Comments

David Neff, editor-in-chief at Christianity Today, writes a piece under the provocative title of “What would John Calvin Say to Dick Cheney?” Calvin is hot.  It’s the 500th, after all.  And the Bush administration is as out of favor as Calvin is supposedly accessible.

The point of Neff’s piece is actually quite sensible.  It has to do with the abuses of the Bush administration in asserting to itself powers above the law.  (Pssst.  Real American conservatives know that Congress is the branch to trust, not the White House.)  Granted, Neff may be guilty of sucking up to the new administration when he credits President Obama with understanding that “whether the issue is the torture of detainees, due process for American citizens suspected of terrorism, or eavesdropping on our private communications without appropriate judicial warrants, the President of the United States is bound by law.”  We’ll see how well any American president resists the temptation of imperial power.

Neff goes on to write as if Calvin would have agreed with Obama and opposed Cheney.  According to Neff:

But what about the unfaithful political leader? Calvin wrote that “dictatorships and unjust authorities are not governments ordained by God.” They are no longer “God’s ministers” if they “practice blasphemous tyranny.”

What a striking phrase: “blasphemous tyranny”! And how apt. When rulers place their own goals ahead of protecting God-given laws and liberties, they are not only being tyrannical, they are also blaspheming.

Continue reading “What Would John Calvin Say to Rowan Williams, and to Billy Graham for that matter?” →

The Reign of Christ is Back

Published on by D. G. HartLeave a comment

Well, technically, it never left.  But De Regno Christi, the blog that sponsored that spirited debate about the Federal Vision, was for several months down for the count.  Now, thank to Bill Chellis, a Reformed Presbyterian (isn’t that redundant?) and New York State conservative (isn’t that an oxymoron), the blog is up and running.  This is the place where the two-kingdoms and the National Covenant enjoy peace and harmony — sort of.

Which Came First, the Theology or the Exegesis?

Published on by D. G. Hart22 Comments

Ken Schenck has been conducting a series of interviews with Pete Enns, formerly of Westminster Seminary and author of the controversial, Inerrancy and Inspiration.

In the second stage or interactions, Schenck asks Enns what he would say to those who think the Old Testament scholar is not a very good Calvinist.  Enns responded:

Just what it means to be Reformed has been a debated issue and the struggle continues to see who will win the right to define it. There are those who think of the Reformed faith—better, a particular articulation of the Reformed faith (19th century Princeton, for example)—as the only true expression not only of the Reformed faith but also of Christianity. Indeed, as some I know have put it, the Reformed faith (narrowly defined) is understood as “Christianity come into its own,” and that the Reformed “hold the truth in trust” for other traditions.

This is tragic, and if this is what it means to be Reformed, then I am not Reformed. If, however, one understands the Reformed faith as a particularly insightful and deep tradition that hits upon numerous biblical and theological issues with clarity and gospel-fidelity—even to the extent that other traditions will be richer for the interaction—BUT that is also, by virtue of its location in particular historical/cultural circumstances, as prone to sin and error as anything else under the sun, and is therefore in need of regular critical evaluation, then, yes, I am Reformed. The Reformed faith is for me, in other words, a means to Christian truth rather than the sum total of Christian truth.

Aside from what this says about Enns’ own understanding of the tradition in which he found himself as a student and professor at Westminster or even what it means to be situated within a theological and ecclesial tradition, it raises an interesting question about the priority of convictions and academics.

It would be impossible to imagine one of Enns’ predecessors at Westminster,  E. J. Young, for instance, rejecting the narrow construction of Reformed Protestantism.  Is the difference between Enns and Young that they approach the critical questions of Old Testament studies differently and then reach alternate understandings of being Reformed?  Or is it that Enns and Young started out with different views of being Reformed which then lead them to approach Old Testament scholarship with alternate — I believe the word is — “trajectories”?

Continue reading “Which Came First, the Theology or the Exegesis?” →

Dog Bites Man; Evangelicalism is Collapsing (Again)

Published on by D. G. Hart34 Comments

The Internet Monk, Michael Spencer, wrote an op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor (you know, the Mary Baker Eddy Christian Science Monitor — so it must be true), on the impending demise of evangelicalism.   The piece has received lots of attention and been forwarded around the e-superhighway; I received at least three emails with links to it.

What accounts for the editorial’s popularity, aside from Matt Drudge having linked it on his site?  One reason has to be Spencer’s contention that evangelicals have let politics overwhelm the gospel, and not just any politics, but the politics of the Right.  Spencer writes:

Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.

Continue reading “Dog Bites Man; Evangelicalism is Collapsing (Again)” →