Comments on: The Mixed Blessing of Liberalism http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/ The Reign of Christ Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:28:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Baus http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-520 Baus Thu, 29 Mar 2007 05:02:21 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-520 The way the Bible <i>does</i> and, in another sense, <i>doesn't</i> speak about the whole of reality, according to neocalvinists: <a href="http://www.freewebs.com/gregorybaus/philosophy.htm" rel="nofollow">Is There A Christian View Of Everything?</a> The way the Bible does and, in another sense, doesn’t speak about the whole of reality, according to neocalvinists: Is There A Christian View Of Everything?

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-515 W.H. Chellis Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:33:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-515 Let me clarify: 1. No one on DRC has ever suggested that "Christianity entails a political theory" as if Christianity demands one form of government or set of laws applicable at all time and places. 2. I do not know that the statement "there are two kingdoms which God adminsters distinctly" is in question. RP's happily affirm this principle. This is affirmed by Augustine in the City of God, Gregory in his Pastoral Rule, Pope Gelasius I in his "two-sword" theory, Thomas, Calvin, Andrew Melville, and every Covenanter. While the judicious Hooker and Burke (men Iove and respect) would dissent to our agreed upon principle, I do not know of anyone in this discussion who has advocated their position. Also, a thought: Since politics begins with the vice-gerency of Adam exercising dominion over the earth and ends with the Kings of the earth bring the glory of the nations into the New Jerusalem, I would say that the fact that grace restores (perfects!!!) nature includes the political realm. Thanks Scott. Let me clarify:

1. No one on DRC has ever suggested that “Christianity entails a political theory” as if Christianity demands one form of government or set of laws applicable at all time and places.

2. I do not know that the statement “there are two kingdoms which God adminsters distinctly” is in question. RP’s happily affirm this principle. This is affirmed by Augustine in the City of God, Gregory in his Pastoral Rule, Pope Gelasius I in his “two-sword” theory, Thomas, Calvin, Andrew Melville, and every Covenanter. While the judicious Hooker and Burke (men Iove and respect) would dissent to our agreed upon principle, I do not know of anyone in this discussion who has advocated their position.

Also, a thought:

Since politics begins with the vice-gerency of Adam exercising dominion over the earth and ends with the Kings of the earth bring the glory of the nations into the New Jerusalem, I would say that the fact that grace restores (perfects!!!) nature includes the political realm.

Thanks Scott.

]]> By: R. Scott Clark http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-513 R. Scott Clark Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:10:30 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-513 Christianity, as such, does speak to both nature and grace. We hold, I think, that grace renews nature. That's not the same thing, however, as saying that Christianity entails some political theory or policy. It's begging the question to assume that unless Christianity speaks to politics that it doesn't speak to nature. It assumes what is in question, whether there are two kingdoms which God administers distinctly. Christianity, as such, does speak to both nature and grace. We hold, I think, that grace renews nature.

That’s not the same thing, however, as saying that Christianity entails some political theory or policy.

It’s begging the question to assume that unless Christianity speaks to politics that it doesn’t speak to nature. It assumes what is in question, whether there are two kingdoms which God administers distinctly.

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-511 W.H. Chellis Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:32:27 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-511 I agree. Except you seem unwilling to say that the book of nature is a Christian book. Why is Christianity limited to redemption to the exclusion of creation (gospel to the exclusion of law, grace to nature, ect)? I agree. Except you seem unwilling to say that the book of nature is a Christian book. Why is Christianity limited to redemption to the exclusion of creation (gospel to the exclusion of law, grace to nature, ect)?

]]> By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-507 D Hart Wed, 28 Mar 2007 21:51:47 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-507 I think, Bill, this is where you and I stumble in our similar yet contested ideas. I don't believe Christianity speaks about the whole of reality because the Bible doesn't speak suchly. (See my comment on Baus' recent post.) Now if you mean that God reveals the whole of reality then I'm on board mostly. But it seems to me crucial to distinguish as the paleo-Calvinists have between the two books of God's revelation. For me, the natural order speaks to the whole of reality, or most of it. But only the Bible speaks of Christ. Or am I missing something? I think, Bill, this is where you and I stumble in our similar yet contested ideas. I don’t believe Christianity speaks about the whole of reality because the Bible doesn’t speak suchly. (See my comment on Baus’ recent post.) Now if you mean that God reveals the whole of reality then I’m on board mostly. But it seems to me crucial to distinguish as the paleo-Calvinists have between the two books of God’s revelation. For me, the natural order speaks to the whole of reality, or most of it. But only the Bible speaks of Christ. Or am I missing something?

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-491 W.H. Chellis Wed, 28 Mar 2007 12:28:24 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-491 Darryl, The gospel is unquestionably not about earthly politics. It is about the death of the righteous Christ for and unrighteous people and recieved by faith alone. That is the gospel. The gospel is not the whole package of Christianity which includes both nature and grace, law and gospel, creation and redemption (as well as consumation). Christianity speaks about the whole of reality but the Church speaks authoritatively only on grace, gospel, and redemption (not nature, law, and creation). I appreciated A Secular Faith for its detailed analysis of how shallow conservative Christian political engagment has been in the American context. Maybe your thesis should be why evangelicalism is politically usesless. Still, Christendom was not useless. What do we enjoy that is not its fruit? That said, the church's role is to expound a very dogmatic and exacting gospel. Yet, the application of biblical truth to the civil area is not nearly as dogmatic or exacting in its application. Your a two kingdom man, I would think you would embrace this distinction. Darryl,

The gospel is unquestionably not about earthly politics. It is about the death of the righteous Christ for and unrighteous people and recieved by faith alone. That is the gospel.

The gospel is not the whole package of Christianity which includes both nature and grace, law and gospel, creation and redemption (as well as consumation). Christianity speaks about the whole of reality but the Church speaks authoritatively only on grace, gospel, and redemption (not nature, law, and creation).

I appreciated A Secular Faith for its detailed analysis of how shallow conservative Christian political engagment has been in the American context. Maybe your thesis should be why evangelicalism is politically usesless. Still, Christendom was not useless. What do we enjoy that is not its fruit?

That said, the church’s role is to expound a very dogmatic and exacting gospel. Yet, the application of biblical truth to the civil area is not nearly as dogmatic or exacting in its application. Your a two kingdom man, I would think you would embrace this distinction.

]]> By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-489 D Hart Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:11:06 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-489 This is what I fear happens when we put Christianity to use for civil society -- we end up with a broad and vague sense of the gospel. I thought the Social Gospelers already taught us that lesson. This is what I fear happens when we put Christianity to use for civil society — we end up with a broad and vague sense of the gospel. I thought the Social Gospelers already taught us that lesson.

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-475 W.H. Chellis Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:53:51 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-475 It was not by accident that John's gospel began with the profoundly Greek declaration that the "Logos became flesh..." It was not by accident that John’s gospel began with the profoundly Greek declaration that the “Logos became flesh…”

]]> By: Caleb Stegall http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-474 Caleb Stegall Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:43:00 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-474 Bill, fair enough, I won't push the argument too far other than to say that I wager all five of the "principles" suggested above can be found in the Greeks (probably elsewhere too) and are therefore not "special revelation" in the sense of a revelation unique to "the gospel" if we use a narrow definition of "gospel" to mean the irruption into history of the divine in the singular person of Christ as that living Word made flesh through which man is saved. If we use a broader definition of the gospel, we may conclude with Justin that the gospel was present to all those in history who responded to the divine pull of the saving logos, even though that Word was undifferentiated and unknown as the second person of the trinity. Bill, fair enough, I won’t push the argument too far other than to say that I wager all five of the “principles” suggested above can be found in the Greeks (probably elsewhere too) and are therefore not “special revelation” in the sense of a revelation unique to “the gospel” if we use a narrow definition of “gospel” to mean the irruption into history of the divine in the singular person of Christ as that living Word made flesh through which man is saved.

If we use a broader definition of the gospel, we may conclude with Justin that the gospel was present to all those in history who responded to the divine pull of the saving logos, even though that Word was undifferentiated and unknown as the second person of the trinity.

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-472 W.H. Chellis Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:27:39 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/25/the-mixed-blessing-of-liberalism/#comment-472 Caleb has called me out and I confess my use of terms has been equivocal. The general principles that I have suggested should inform civil magistrates are "Christian" in a specific sense (i.e. because they are derived from the special revelation contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.) That said, whatever principles that have been expounded by pagans in conformity to the light of natural revelation and consistent with special revelation can be understood as "Christian" in the more general sense, in the sense that the Christian revelation is found in both natural and special revelation, (i.e. all true truth must be Christian since the Triune God is the ultimate knower of all things and our "true knowledge" is always anological). Caleb has called me out and I confess my use of terms has been equivocal. The general principles that I have suggested should inform civil magistrates are “Christian” in a specific sense (i.e. because they are derived from the special revelation contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.)

That said, whatever principles that have been expounded by pagans in conformity to the light of natural revelation and consistent with special revelation can be understood as “Christian” in the more general sense, in the sense that the Christian revelation is found in both natural and special revelation, (i.e. all true truth must be Christian since the Triune God is the ultimate knower of all things and our “true knowledge” is always anological).

]]>