One Thesis

53 Responses to “One Thesis”

1. Andrew Matthews

   June 2nd, 2007 at 7:08 pm

   So, the ultimate purpose of Christianity is to effect a forensic verdict (a legal fiction), and not to change our essential orientation? This isn’t what St. Paul says:

   “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.”

   According to the apostle, justification is that forgiveness and acceptance God provides as a means to our glorification. God’s ultimate purpose for us is to conform us to the image of His Son. The victories we achieve in our sanctification (mortification of the flesh, turning to God, loving neighbor) are faltering steps in anticipation of this future glorification. These initial steps are taken, trusting in the sufficiency of Christ.

   Christians who trust in Christ and work out of gratitutude to consistently perservere and systematically increase in holiness have no obligation to justify themselves before others. They are doing what they are supposed to do, and will give an account to their Lord at the ordained time. They certainly have no obligation to defend themselves against those (usually anabaptists) who with jaundiced eye characterize their efforts as semi-pelagian attempts at auto-soterism.

   On the macro level, this fits well with my arguments for aspiring to penultimate Megapolis in anticipation of eschatological Metapolis, the New Jerusalem that comes (only) out of Heaven.

2. Caleb Stegall

   June 2nd, 2007 at 10:26 pm

   Leaving the theology aside for a moment, this part made me curious:

   I am coming to the conclusion that this difference — Christianity as forgiveness of sins vs. Christianity as a plan for Christian conduct, or Protestantism that emphasizes justification vs. Protestantism that stresses sanctification — is what separates me from many who constitute either the Religious or the American Right.

   If I read this correctly, Darryl is suggesting that the religious right (evangelicals) stresses sanctification and not justification. This doesn’t seem to fit with a great deal of criticism directed towards evangelicalism accusing it of offering cheap grace and what boils down to theraputic deism.

   In my observation, much of what happens on the religious right and “Christian America” is not really Christianity as that which “makes us good,” but Christianity as that which makes us feel good. This may actually drive an over-emphasis on a shaky understanding of justification and not much of any emphasis on sanctification (conformity to the suberbourgeois ethic doesn’t count).

3. Baus

   June 3rd, 2007 at 1:04 am

   Indeed Hart is nowhere near Calvinist enough, and something at the heart of his religion appears to be the trouble. The Calvinist understands that even the sinner’s justification is subservient to God’s Glory. So the purpose of Christianity is not to render us forgiven; it is to glorify God.

   Of course, this point gets complicated.

4. D Hart

   June 3rd, 2007 at 8:28 am

   Andrew, you have practically almost made my point. You write, “Christians who trust in Christ and work out of gratitutude to consistently perservere and systematically increase in holiness have no obligation to justify themselves before others.” That implies a level of confidence in the rightness of what Christians do that appeares to border on self-righteousness. If Christians actually remembered that their progress in holiness was also tainted by sin, they might not be so eager to set themselves or their religion up as the model for the good society. They might also think about justifying themselves before others.

   Caleb, as Ken Myers has said, “evangelicals are making the world safe for Mormonism.” (Ken said that around 1990. It is remarkable how true it has turned out to be with the impending presidential contest and the emerging evangelical support for Romney. Can you say faith-based politics? Sure you can.) I still think it possible to have cheap grace and moralism. The result is cheap moralism. In either case, my read of evangelicals (and of Calvinists who have hung out with them for too long) is that the difference that Christianity makes in one’s life is largely moral. To be sure, evangelicals are no longer nearly as unified as they once were on things like divorce or drink. They no longer condemn. They affirm. But even the affirmationists think prmimarily in moral categories — if you’re not loving the way Jesus was (so much for his treatment of the tables at the Temple), then you should be condemned. I also think this is why the Religious Right has a difficult time considering politics other than through an ethical grid.

   To Baus I’d ask first why is it the tactic of neo-Calvinists to make an ad hominem argument before addressing the point. I do wonder if his rendering of Calvinism gives our faith a bad name. To say that the purpose of Christianity is to give glory to God and to imply that this trumps forgiveness is not remote from the Jihadists who want to praise Allah irrespective of their own life or the lives of others. Granted, you pithily admit the question is more complicated. But the classic epigram on God’s glory is WSC 1 which says “man’s chief end is to glorify God AND enjoy him forever” (all caps added). So perhaps the ultimate expression of glorifying God is one that necessarily involves our enjoyment. I don’t see then how we can enjoy God for ever without being justified. So how is justification not central to Calvinism?

5. Caleb Stegall

   June 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 am

   Darryl, I agree with you, however, doesn’t this lead to the rather intriguing fact that it is actually an overemphasis on justification that leads to cheap moralism, or what I would call, following Christian Smith, therapuetic moralism?

6. Jon Luker

   June 3rd, 2007 at 10:43 am

   I sense that somewhere inside these folks they believe Christianity is chiefly about producing ethical, decent, upstanding persons. Put enough of these people in office, or increase their numbers and - voila - you have one great social order.

   Dr. Hart,

   This thesis seems focused on the goodness of men, rather than on fallible men submitted to an Authority. To Whom and to Whose law one is submitted is paramount. It’s a given that all men, in whatever point of sanctification they find themselves, are sinners in need of a Savior. It seems to me that if you use apply a similar thesis to the Church, which is, as well, overseen by fallible men submitted to God, you end up with a Kingdom that depends on the frailty of its subjects rather than upon the perfection of its King.

7. Andrew Matthews

   June 3rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm

   Darryl, I do agree we must provide an account for what we do, in all humility and service to our fellow man. But we will only be successful to a point; there will always be those who are unsatisfied that our motives are pure enough. There will always be those who find fault.

   In the end, the governing authorities must decide from where their authority derives, whether they are going to seek to honor the Lord, and how best to guide their people in the way of righteousness. Those who oppose their authority to do so should receive the punishment they deserve.

   I think you are correct that the liberal-democratic order cannot sustsain a Christian order. Both the social order and the Church have been compromised as a result. But this only proves that liberal democracy is incompatible with Christendom, not that Christendom itself is wrong. I think where our society has gone wrong is to tell the common citizen he is competent to decide what is necessary for a society and even what is ultimately right. Plato made this point in the Phaedo, I believe.

   In his End for Which God Created the World, Edwards argues that the glory of God and man’s happiness are ultimately one and the same thing. However, this happiness comes only in our pursuit of seeking to glorify God. In the end, we have to do our best and let God prosper or judge our work.

8. D Hart

   June 4th, 2007 at 6:12 am

   Andrew, is Protestantism compatible with Christendom? Lots of Roman Catholics answer no.

   Caleb, an overemphasis on justification might lead to antinomianism but I simply haven’t seen it during my lifetime of observing evangelicals. The stress has been far more on sanctification. Perhaps the problem is the state of denial in which you must live when claiming to have “gotten the victory” and knowing that you’re still mired in the muck. That disparity between ideal and reality could well explain therapeutic moralism, but I don’t claim to be a sociologist.

9. Caleb Stegall

   June 4th, 2007 at 7:27 am

   Darryl, what do you think of Weber’s The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism? I have seen a dumbed down therapized version of the Protestant Ethic preached in evangelicalism, but I wouldn’t consider this a stress on sanctification.

10. W.H. Chellis

    June 4th, 2007 at 8:50 am

    While there has been moralism aplenty in RPCNA circles, it is also interesting to note that the RPC historially sided with the Associate Presbytery on matters pertaining to the heart of the gospel. The Covenanters were committed to the “Marrow-men” and officially rebuked the Church of Scotland for its condemnation of the Marrow of Modern Divinity.

    Since the Marrow Controvery was focused on issues of justification and its relationship to the covenant, I think it is intereting that the RPC, that denomination most committed to notions of Christendom, took up the cause of the Marrow against the neo-nomianism of the late 17th and early 18th Century.

    I am not sure what this says about Darryl’s Thesis.

11. Caleb Stegall

    June 4th, 2007 at 9:50 am

    Darryl’s thesis is fascinating to me. He posits a return to Luther’s emphasis on justification sola fide as a cure for excessive moralism in the church. This turns one of the most compelling critiques of Luther/Calvin on its head. This critique, following Weber and Voegelin, runs something like this:

    1) Luther had to reconcile justification sola fide with numerous biblical commands to keep the law.

    2) He thus bifurcated scripture into law (OT) versus promise (NT).

    3) Law shows us what to do, but gives us no ability to do it. Thus, law has the effect of causing us to understand our failure and in turn despair of our salvation.

    4) In this state, man is prepared to receive the promise, which is faith, thereby releasing man from the law, and freeing him to righteousness through unity with Christ.

    5) In order to defend against rampant gnostic speculation, Luther renders this righteousness obtained through faith in the promise as a righteousness of the soul only. The body of sin remains, which forecloses the possibility of a terrestrial paradise.

    6) This raises the additional problem of a people indifferent to morality and/or positively given over to licentiousness. To combat this kind of derailment on the other side of the track, Luther reintroduces an argument for good works. These good works are conceived of literally as a renewal of “work” under the Adamic covenant, whereby man gives good service in a realm of social obligation as his offering of gratitude to the promise giver (but not as righteousness).

    7) These good works become the outward mark of the community of the redeemed.

    This is, in very short summary, the spiritual economy which gives us the Protestant Ethic (or what George Santayana called “moral materialism”) which, it appears to me, is really what Darryl wants to condemn. I would like very much to believe him when he says a return to Luther/Calvin will aid us, but in light of the historical evidence against this, I am not sure what to think.

12. stevez

    June 4th, 2007 at 10:40 am

    i like caleb’s obsevation above.

    writer and art critic robert hofler of Variety magazine recently said that while american stage is primarily about expression, art and talent, american film is more or less really only about two things, as the title of the new film “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” seems to suggest: sexuality and violence.

    in the same way, while the church is about justification american cult and culture is about two things: morality and spirituality.

    like darryl, i have spent enough time in these quarters (and still do by proxy) he has to say that the two greatest idols subsuming beneath are both moralism and spiritualism (or what could be called deistic therapeutism). it depends on what day it is, but american cult and culture generally speaking is characterized by both. for my money, it is largely spiritualism/sanctification/etc. that wins the day. it is really a glorifed self-improvement plan, self being defined either individually or corporately, you know, bad people good or good people better.

    i would add to darryl’s categorical distinction (forgiveness versus moral rectification) and broaden it on the one side from just the right to both right and left. the former always had it there but learned a lot from the latter.

    zrim

13. TimBloedow

    June 4th, 2007 at 10:52 am

    On the one hand, people are criticising so-called moralism and an apparently undue interest in ethical living as evidence of self-salvation, and lack of dependence on God.

    On the other hand, we have comments like Darryl’s - e.g. “they might not be so eager to set themselves or their religion up as the model for the good society” - which suggest that we should not try to draw too much of a connection between genuine salvation and the way people live.

    So, we’re supposed to put more faith in, and dependence on, God, but we aren’t supposed to expect God to be big enough to work out in us the kind of salvation and its evidences that the Bible tells us to expect in Christians.

    The reason I have so much confidence in the increasingly marked distinction between Christians and non-Christians in our personal lives as well as our public witness is because my God is big enough to accomplish this. I have no interest in the religion of numerous people on this list that suggests that their sin is too tough a problem for God to deal with. Let’s drop the euphemisms and esoteric philosophical jargon, and see some of what is being said for what is really being said.

14. stevez

    June 4th, 2007 at 11:37 am

    andrew,

    i wonder if the difference is between how God sanctifies us and how we might confuse His work with ours? that is the sense i get when listening and observing those who seems to be drawn to sanctification in the way you seem to be. it is God’s work alone, with which we seem to get pretty impatient. and maybe it’s this impatience that gets us into trouble and makes us say impious things of the christian life like, “git ‘er gone!” well, what if i look at myself and see that not much appears to be done…how does that square with being called a “royal priesthood,” etc.? seems that God sees something i must admit i don’t.

    zrim

15. stevez

    June 4th, 2007 at 3:19 pm

    “On the one hand, people are criticising so-called moralism and an apparently undue interest in ethical living as evidence of self-salvation, and lack of dependence on God.”

    that is because man is programmed for the covenant of works. it’s the only deal on the table for natural man. all the buzzing we hear in the world is man trying to live up to what he was created for.

    “On the other hand, we have comments like Darryl’s - e.g. “they might not be so eager to set themselves or their religion up as the model for the good society” - which suggest that we should not try to draw too much of a connection between genuine salvation and the way people live.”

    i think the difference may be in who these “people” are. the phrase i am about to use is meant for effect in order to make a point: with the spectacles of faith i couldn’t care any less how my government or culture behaves but am very serious about the folks around me at the communion rail. that is to say, there *IS* a connection between genuine salvation and the way people behave, absolutely. but the gospel is for US, not THEM.

    there OUGHT to be a tearing down of the decalogue from the public square because it does not belong to the pagans–that is OUR symbol which has a whole different reason for its existence than bettering the KoM. if pagans want to better society (a perfectly fine endeavor with which i will join them) they can appeal to the nataural law written in creation (which also demands that i can be wrong in any given and disputable issue, no matter that i have the Holy Spirit abiding within me–to pick up on darryl’s point to the implications of what andrew writes above), but they have no right to our symbol, and when we allow them to have it we denigrate it. it was given the israelites ALONE, not to any other surrounding people, and for very specific, cultic (not cultural) purposes.

    zrim

16. Baus

    June 4th, 2007 at 3:59 pm

    Mr. Hart, I don’t think my comment was ad hominem, but I repent if it was, and I’ll endeavor to clarify here.

    You had said your position “may explain why [you] sound Lutheran”. I was stating that your view not merely sounds Lutheran, but actually is subCalvinist. Now, my claim was not that a view should be discounted merely for being subCalvinist, nor that you should be disbelieved because I have labeled you this way for holding such a view –that would indeed be circumstantial. My claim is that no one can find a higher or more central purpose in Christianity than The Glory Of God. Apparently, this doesn’t have the self-evident force I had hoped, so I will elaborate.

    The answer to your questions about WSC1 is that not all men (viz, those who are never saved) attain the chief end of enjoyment. Nevertheless, God’s purposes are not thwarted. God’s glory doesn’t “trump” forgiveness in the immoral sense you rightly find disturbing. But God is glorified through the condemnation of the wicked (eg, Jihadist) AND through the justification of the repentant sinner. This is to say that justification too is subservient to His Glory. Justification cannot be the highest purpose.

    This doesn’t mean that justification isn’t central to the gospel and the whole of salvation. I certainly think it is. And yet we may disagree with your reduction of the purpose of Christianity without being moralistic or at all sympathetic to the distortions of evangelicals.

17. Andrew Matthews

    June 5th, 2007 at 3:38 am

    Darryl, you ask, “Is Protestantism compatible with Christendom?” Which Protestantism— that which offers pastoral comfort offered to soothe the sinner’s terrified conscience or, that which posits the individual at the epistemic center of competence?

    Luther can be interpreted to anticipate Descartes by subjecting all received tradition to radical doubt. Faith is the one religious act that cannot be compromised or doubted: “I believe, therefore I am elect.” Once the autonomous subject has determined his elect state, he proceeds to determine what he finds rationally acceptable based on his interpretation of the primary datum of Holy Scripture. The structure of Christian belief is then re-organized to correlate with the individual subject’s chief priority: how am I made right with God? Luther may thus be interpreted as the first modern.

    Any ecclesiastical tradition (dogma, liturgical formality, disciplinary rule), not obviously relating to the individual’s soteric quest then tends to be regarded as superfluous, or worse, distracting from his essential concern. A number of self-conscious elect will then organize to purify the tradition, since they judge such superfluities as illegitimate impositions upon individual sovereign conscience. Failing this, they will break away and form more highly disciplined bodies to achieve as austere and simplified an ideal as possible. Over time, these dissenting groups produce their own traditions that come under scrutiny by later generations of “elect.” Secessionist dissenters view those left behind in the old systems as “nominal,” or perhaps, “carnal” (if true) Christians. This has happened over and over again in Church history.

    The “elect dynamic” eventually leads to an explicit avowal of the doctrine of popular sovereignty, first in ecclesiastical affairs, then in the political realm. (Darryl, you yourself find Locke agreeable.) At least, this is how things turned out historically. So clearly, I am not a fan of the Protestant doctrine of Justification as an organizing principle of religion, but only as a necessary corrective to the pastoral abuses of the medieval Roman system. John Williamson Nevin wrote somewhere that heretics have always been the loudest to proclaim their fidelity to free justification. Perfectly true doctrines can be employed to various results: some good, some bad.

    zrim, on the micro level I agree with you. We are each on our own unique journey to the Celestial City. Some walk slowly; some walk more quickly. We all have different strengths… and weaknesses. However, on the macro level, the rulers of the church are required to make decisions about how best to evangelize and disciple large groups of people. Sectarians don’t have a better way, they avoid the task altogether. I know, I’ve been among them.

    Leaders of society, whether civil or ecclesiastical, do not have the luxury of being able to customize spiritual/moral direction for every single person. While the “elect” have no need of communal spiritual helps (liturgies, solemn fasts & memorials, etc.), average people do.

    Finally, “elect” sectarians entirely avoid the question whether collective social action should be organized in service to God’s glory. If not, why not? Is the cultural mandate obsolete because we are no longer under a covenant of works??

18. stevez

    June 5th, 2007 at 12:46 pm

    andrew,

    with regard to your micro-macro distinction, i suppose i see the fulcrum really being believer/church and not in any way broadened or blurred to society. someone once said if all is sacred then nothing is.

    i have no idea if i am an “elect sectarian.” and so i have no idea about what follows per your diagnosis of such beings. but i would like to hazzard a response about collective social action glorifying God (which may mean i am not an “elect sectarian”?): isn’t God glorified by his gospel? when i hear that phrase cultural mandate (which i hear lots in my neck of the woods) i ususally hear this idea that assumed behind it that we are still indeed under the CoW. otherwise, i am not so sure what to make of all the rabidness that accompanies the phrase. this fervor always seems to imply to me that we think the CoW is still the deal on the table. i have no issue with a world-affirming piety that seeks to pursure cultural endeavor with vigor (in fact, such a piety is a big part of what attracted me to the reformed tradition). but as i listen to cultural mandate dogma i hear more than that; i hear the message that is not overtly stated, the one that still seems to think we can, at some measure, get ourselves out of the probationary period with hight marks. that will always been protested. but what else can one conclude when one hears definitions of “kingdom work” being “taking over the fields of art, culture, medicine and politics”? for me, the world-affirming piety that embraces worldly work goes quite south when this stort of thing takes over. sure seems like a rather low view of sin must be in place to make such views really work.

    the cultural mandate is not obsolete per se. the CoW is still a standing policy, so to speak. it’s just that only One of us has achieved it, and on the behalf of his own people to boot. we ought to see the mandate from the vantage point of gratitude for what Another has done for us now, not in anticipation for what we might wrought for ourselves. that is a tall order for beings programmed to achieve themselves. but that’s just the way it is. and as i listen to your side of the table, i simply get the sense that impatience is the order of the day. it’s a delicate line, i suppose, to tow between seeing the mandate as good and at once still ours to achieve, and yet then also grasping that we cannot and Another has done it. the mandate is good, but until we see it from the POV of thanks (backward looking) instead of anticipation (forward looking) i think our differences will always be deep. and i think this difference makes all the difference.

    zrim

19. stevez

    June 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pm

    Baus,

    It may be picking up on something quite minor, but I can’t help it because I think it useful. When you give an example of “the wicked” I wonder if by picking Jihadists you make it much too specific. When I think of “the wicked” I think of those who have not embraced the Gospel, which, common sense seems to tell me, certainly includes the Jihadists. But it also includes those white, western unbelievers who have perhaps gobbled up all the supposed goodies of Christendom and that makes for “the great society,” even telling us that their favorite philosopher is Jesus on televised debates…yet have not truly embraced the Gospel. You know that old adage about what a society would look like if Satan took over, right? not a bad futuristic-Schwarzenegger movie with burning heaps of metal and chaos, but paved streets and clipped lawns and obedient children and no bars and no seedy lap-dance joints and classic western pedagogies in every classroom…and churches wherein the Gospel is not preached? The wicked seem to come in all sorts of clothing and colors, educational backgrounds and economic status and from all sorts of “worldviews,” don’t they?

    Also, to this “glory of God” dictum. It has always seemed to me that such a broad term has to be more specified. So when we ask our children to answer the first question it sure seems like the next logical one should be, “well, what does that mean exactly?” and when we plod through the following questions, don’t they seem to be one, unified yet quite simple message that answers how sinful people stand justified before a holy God? You do concede that justification is “central” to the salvation message. Yet, it seems that just like all the neo-Calvinists around me, I hear “it’s the Gospel (which I take to mean this message of justification) AND…” Do I read you right? You sound like the neo-Calvinists I know and they all affirm that interpretation, so I wonder if you would as well. if so, for better or worse, I can’t help but also think of how the Reformation Gospel seems to have differed from that medieval one in which the former came up with all those sola’s and the latter anathematized them for it (you know, the reformers saying “Christ alone,” and Rome saying “Christ AND” or “faith ALONE,” versus “faith AND”). Would you consider this “Gospel AND” to be at all similar to that categorical distinction, or would that be a ridiculous inference on my part?

    The “Gospel AND” messages seem to always give way to what follows the AND, I find. The Gospel becomes a neatly understood message, tucked away in tidy drawers and only really taken out to prove to one another that we are part of the club, rather than that which radically separates us from the pagans and even those who might dare to call themselves Christians (i.e. Trent). Indeed, doesn’t the Gospel go beyond simply being politely “central” to being radically distinctive, allowing no “ANDs” to share God’s throne?

    zrim

20. Baus

    June 7th, 2007 at 2:57 pm

    Steve, I mentioned Jihadists as an example only because Hart had said the neocalvinist position that Christianity’s purpose is The Glory Of God was “not far removed” from that of the Jihadists! I believe such a statement on Hart’s part is only indicative of the profound confusion within his own perspective on these issues. In any case, I certainly agree that the wicked are not “notoriously uncivil” folk, but rather the unjustified.

    I’m absolutely not adding anything to Christ in the salvation equation. I’m a radical monergist. I am saying the fullness of salvation is more than justification alone, while justification is central. That should be totally uncontroversial as we all believe that sanctification and glorification flow from justification in union with Christ.

    I’m also saying that Christianity isn’t about “Fall and Redemption” (ala Hart’s reduction) to the exclusion or minimalization of “Creation”. See the discussion in the comments here: http://deregnochristi.org/2007/04/02/saddam-hussein-under-god/
    I believe Hart (and perhaps others like VanDrunen) fail to see these as inseparable because they shun the Klinean and VanTilian view of Covenantal reality and eschatology. I don’t know if the connection is apparent to you… but I suppose an elaboration will have to wait for its own post.

21. D Hart

    June 7th, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    Baus, I wonder where one finds the definition that Calvinism pure and unmixed is the glory of God. If you could point us all to that source we might be edified. No fair quoting Kuyper though. He’s neo.

    BTW, I may not read Kline the way you do, but his distinction between cult and culture a strong influence on my own views of religion and politics. And I think it is very difficult to claim Kline as a transformationalist.

22. Baus

    June 9th, 2007 at 2:26 am

    Mr. Hart, I’m a little confused by your request. Surely you recognize that The Glory Of God is a higher and more central purpose than the forgiveness of man, and surely you recognize that God’s purpose in forgiving man is to glorify Himself. But I’m not sure why this basic consideration does not persuade you that the highest and most central purpose of Christianity is not, as you first stated, man’s forgiveness, but rather God’s glory.

    In any case, you are asking me to provide a statement that is in agreement with my claim (by someone other than Kuyper) who credibly represents a “pure” Calvinism? Will Warfield suffice?

    In his essay “The Theology of John Calvin” he says:
    ‘Calvinism asks with the same eagerness as Lutheranism the great question: “What shall I do to be saved?” and answers it precisely as Lutheranism answers it. But it cannot stop there. The deeper question presses upon it, “Whence this faith by which I am justified?” And the deeper response suffuses all the chambers of the soul with praise, “From the free gift of God alone, to the praise of the glory of His grace.” Thus Calvinism withdraws the eye from the soul and its destiny and fixes it on God and His glory. It has zeal, no doubt, for salvation but its highest zeal is for the honor of God, and it is this that quickens its emotions and vitalizes its efforts. It begins, it centers and it ends with the vision of God in His glory and it sets itself, before all things, to render to God His rights in every sphere of life-activity.’

    But if Warfield is too Kuyperian for your liking, we find the same claim concerning the glory of God in our Confession on the Eternal Decree and its execution in Creation, Fall, and Redemption.

    + God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass… [and] doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

    + It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create…

    + The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission… This their sin, God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.

    + By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death… [elect men's] justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.

    But even if you continue to have trouble seeing salvation (and the fall) as of a piece with Christianity’s teaching about the creation (or vice versa), Jesus Himself informs us in John 17: 1-5 that His giving us eternal life and the accomplishment of His salvific work is for the purpose of glorifying of God.

    On Kline… first consider that since he says culture is necessarily religious, then “common” cannot mean “non-religious”. On page 201 of Kingdom Prologue Kline asks what does sanctifying culture entail with respect to the common city of man? He says Christian cultural activity is an expression of the reign of God. However you might read him, based on my own reading and personal discussion with him, Kline is certainly my kind of transformationalist, anyway.

23. D Hart

    June 9th, 2007 at 9:30 am

    Who am I to disagree with Warfield (though I do think his postmillennialism sometimes got the better of his judgment)? To be clear, I’m not denying the glory of God being important to the Reformed faith. But I’m not sure why folks like Baus would see my assertion of justification’s importance as being at odds with the glory of God, as if you can either have one or the other (Caleb, if you’re reading, hold on, I’m about to have my cake and eat it).

    All of Baus’ quotations are accurate and I affirm them. But wouldn’t it also be true that the ultimate (or highest) glory of God only comes through justification, thus making justification crucial to God’s own glory? After all, Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection supremely gives glory to God. If there were a way to give greater Himself glory God would have chosen another way. Also, the good works by which the regenerate glorify God can only be accomplished by the justified.

    So rather than seeing justification and God’s glory standing in isolation from each other, the whole history of redemption points to the centrality of justification in God’s ordering all things for his own glory. Here I would mention that I find it curious that the Kuyperians (e.g. Creation Regained) often leave off the consummation as the final stage of redemptive history. They speak more often of re-creation than of consummation (i.e. glorification, ironically). The reason for mentioning this is that if the point of salvation is to return us to Eden, Christ and his work as the lamb slain for sinners COULD (I emphasize, could) become less important than a system that regards the end of history being the New Jerusalem at the center of which is that lamb seated on his throne.

    As for Baus’ reading of Kline, I can only reply by anecdote. All of the Klineans I know do not count Kline as a transformationalist, such as T. David Gordon, John Muether, David VanDrunen, and Lee Irons. In fact, they use Kline to counter Kuyperians. Granted, Kline was Van Tillian and so some of the Dutch Calvinist worldviewism may have trickled down at certain points. But the man who wrote the OPC minority report on medical missions (against) is a theologian who stands some distance from redeeming all the spheres, including medicine.

24. GAS

    June 9th, 2007 at 10:16 am

    “But I’m not sure why folks like Baus would see my assertion of justification’s importance as being at odds with the glory of God, as if you can either have one or the other…”

    Likewise, I would argue, is the case with recreation and consummation.
    If our only concern is the consummation we might as well all become Baptists.

25. Anthony Cowley

    June 26th, 2007 at 11:48 am

    Wow. Its hard to keep clear who said what. Where have all the Postmils gone? Oi vey.

    I suppose the Larger Catechism’s dealing with the law’s implications for society is postmil too? Not to mention the conversion of the Jews, with all nations, under the Lord’s Prayer.

    I’m not so sure I’ve seen way too much emphasis on Sanctification anywhere in my Christian experience. What I have seen is an emphasis upon the continuing implications of total depraivity, without the equal emphasis upon the power of Grace.

    And, all this talk about the Covenant of Works is misleading. If all mankind is under the Covenant of Works, then their moral obligations are not removed, right? (Right - See below).

    Yes, let’s take the 10 Commandments down. Let’s not remind unbelievers of their Covenanted Obligations! Let’s remove all trace of the Law from the world!

    It seems that some of you are saying: (A) Unbelievers can’t keep the Law; (B) Believers don’t really keep the law, so (C) just expect some sort of semi-sincere quasi obedience on the part of believers, based upon some sort of unclear connection to Jesus. But (D) don’t require the nations to obey Jesus. (E) THe Church shouldn’t preach the possibility of transformation to the nations, for there is no Gospel for the Nations. And (F) remember, even justified persons are sinners who don’t really keep the Law, so, just hole up in your Church and take a shot at sanctification, but don’t really expect it. Just remember justification is the gospel.

    Do I sound frustrated? Sarcastic? I know that Dr. Hart’s approach is very complex and so forth, but it does not seem to fit with the confession. These establishmentarians were big on Justification. They were big on Sanctification. They were big on National Obedience. They were Big on the Glory of God, Indeed! Now, I only give one hoot for the Confession. I give many hoots for the Bible: Yes, while one might question the CoWorks emphasis here, or there - many have, including John Murray - the doctrine being derived FROM the doctrine of the Covenant of Works on this list IS NOT what the Confession’s authors did with it!

    WCF 19:1 God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, …
    19:2 This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness, and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables …
    19:5 The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; neither doth Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation (Mat_5:17-19; Rom_3:31; Jam_2:8).
    19:6 Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs, and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law, as a covenant of works. So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and not under grace.
    19:7 Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.

    So - it is interesting that on this list the need is to emphasize the opposite of what the Confession felt had to be emphasized: that BELIEVERS need to keep the Law. We have to emphaize that ALL men are under obligation to keep the law. And, we know that no one will, or has - except Jesus. But, those who are IN CHRIST are law keepers, and that makes all the difference. It is not because Jesus is Cherry picking individuals, who can then “add up” to have an “influence” on society. Rather, Jesus is saving Families and Societies (Nations) as such, as much as individuals. Call me Kuyperian, call me transformationalist. Call me postmillennial. Whatever. Jesus strengthens the obligations of the law. Why? Because in Jesus it is DOABLE. We don’t seem to believe that, but Paul and Moses did. I don’t have time to explain, so I’ll risk letting the Bible explain itself. Essentially, I quote Rom 10, then give passages cited by the Apostle in context, then something on the Spirit. Gotta run:

    Rom 10:6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down)
    Rom 10:7 or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).
    Rom 10:8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
    Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
    Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
    Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
    Rom 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.
    Rom 10:13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
    Rom 10:14 But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
    Rom 10:15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”
    Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”
    Rom 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
    Rom 10:18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for “Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.”

    Lev 18:5 You shall therefore keep my statutes and my rules; if a person does them, he shall live by them: I am the LORD.

    Deu 30:8 And you shall again obey the voice of the LORD and keep all his commandments that I command you today.
    Deu 30:9 The LORD your God will make you abundantly prosperous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your womb and in the fruit of your cattle and in the fruit of your ground. For the LORD will again take delight in prospering you, as he took delight in your fathers,
    Deu 30:10 when you obey the voice of the LORD your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Law, when you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
    Deu 30:11 “For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.
    Deu 30:12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’
    Deu 30:13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’
    Deu 30:14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.
    Deu 30:15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil.
    Deu 30:16 If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.

    Isa 52:15 so shall he sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him; for that which has not been told them they see, and that which they have not heard they understand.
    Isa 53:1 Who has believed what they heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
    Isa 53:11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.
    Isa 53:12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.
    Isa 54:1 “Sing, O barren one, who did not bear; break forth into singing and cry aloud, you who have not been in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than the children of her who is married,” says the LORD.
    Isa 54:2 “Enlarge the place of your tent, and let the curtains of your habitations be stretched out; do not hold back; lengthen your cords and strengthen your stakes.
    Isa 54:3 For you will spread abroad to the right and to the left, and your offspring will possess the nations and will people the desolate cities.
    Isa 54:4 “Fear not, for you will not be ashamed; be not confounded, for you will not be disgraced; for you will forget the shame of your youth, and the reproach of your widowhood you will remember no more.
    Isa 54:5 For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name; and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer, the God of the whole earth he is called.

    Gal 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
    Gal 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
    Gal 5:15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.
    Gal 5:16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
    Gal 5:17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.
    Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
    Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,
    Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions,
    Gal 5:21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
    Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
    Gal 5:23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
    Gal 5:24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
    Gal 5:25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

    Ciao

26. D Hart

    June 27th, 2007 at 6:14 am

    As I understand it, the Reformed hermeneutic is to let the clear passages of Scripture interpret the less clear. So the place to go for the Bible’s teaching on the state is to those passages that address government, not to pile on with the Cov. of Works or the law. For all that Anthony cites, he left off Rom. 13 which says Christians should submit to a government that is less than Christian. So everything he cites needs to be interpreted through the lens of what the Bible actually says about the state. No fair going to the Old Testament since the political and ceremonial were fulfilled in Christ.

27. Anthony Cowley

    June 27th, 2007 at 10:23 am

    As pointed out elsewhere, Rom. 13 teaches that the Civil Magistrate is a minister of God’s wrath, a leitorgos as well as a servant. While Christians submit to unbelieving Civil Government, the Government is to do its job based upon the lead of Scripture. How does he know upon whom to administer wrath via the sword? If he has Special revelation, is he to ignore it?

    So, don’t say, “not fair” to go to the OT, when the NT goes to the OT. I went to the OT passages because the NT cited them as authoritative. I gave the context of the Isaiah passages to show the national aspect of the proclamation of the Gospel. The gospel is for the nations, who are to be baptized (sure, whatever that may mean - we may dispute its meaning, but try to find out how to obey its obligation).
    Baptize the nations, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you, and Lo I am with you always to the end of the ages.
    Hence, we must let Scripture interpret Scripture. You seem to think that Romans 13 stands alone. My approach is to see where Rom. 13 leads. It leads back to the avenger of blood.
    Gotta run,
    TC

28. Caleb Stegall

    June 27th, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    Romans 13 describes a government that is less than Christian, yes, but still just, by a hellenistic standard. The passage is further complicated by the fact that the admonition clearly comes in the context of a people living in imminent expectation of Christ’s return, which, clearly, proved to be wrong.

29. D Hart

    June 29th, 2007 at 6:24 am

    That expectation about Christ’s return was wrong only if we count days differently than the Lord does, as in a day is as a thousand years. Sorry to sound so biblicist, Caleb, but I believe that immenent expectation was right and what all Christians should believe.

    To Anthony, an unbelieving magistrate knows about justice the same way the church knows to use Roberts Rules, by looking at norms “common to human actions and societies” (WCF 1.6). On the other hand, if Scripture were the norm, wouldn’t that make you a theonomist?

30. Caleb Stegall

    June 29th, 2007 at 7:04 am

    Yes, Christians should live with an expectation of Christ’s return. But I think trying to massage away the uncomfortable fact that much of the NT is written by and for people who mistakenly believed Christ would return in their lifetimes is going to force one into a rather tortured exegesis. What was it CS Lewis said about Matt. 24:34 being the most embarrassing verse in the Bible?

    Talking about a day being a thousand years IS a typical biblicist move. It is irrellevant to the spiritual experience of Jesus, Paul, and the NT church, which is what is crucial to come to grips with. Sorry to sound so anti-biblicist!

31. stevez

    June 29th, 2007 at 10:46 am

    perhaps matthew 24:34 is embarrasing when one woodenly reads “this generation” and not parenthetically/exilically/pilgrimly (oops, there goes my alleged dispensational wing showing again. sorry, andrew). consider the rest of the passage and its correspondance to noah’s generation, how the doings will be just as they were then and how they are now, coming and going, eating and drinking, buying and selling and the relative evil afoot.

    in point of fact, imminent expectation doesn’t seem so tortured-biblicist when one presumes the pilgrim lens over against something less than that (or, shall i say “more” than that if one is donning the theology of glory lens?). and that biblicists may have been peppered in the crowd also takes away any sting of lewis’s embarrasment; the problem isn’t scripture but man. imminent expectation is a proper christian piety. yet there seems a wide gap between sandwich board expectation and a more sober, world-worn one.

    zrim

32. Anthony Cowley

    June 30th, 2007 at 11:45 am

    The Word of God is the norm. It is accessible through natural law at a certain level. All my quotes about the law were in reply to your thesis about what Christianity is all about. The light of nature and nature’s God is revealed to all men to some degree. As you said, We interpret the unclear by the Clear. So, yes, the Scripture speaks more clearly than mere natural law on many things (not all things). Where it is clearer, it rules our interpretation of the less clear.
    You seem to be limiting the discussion now to the State, whereas your opening salvo was all about what Christianity is intended to do. It makes disciples who obey “all that I have commanded you” until the end of the age.
    I agree with Calvin that the Judicial laws are not specifically binding today. But, I agree with the Confession also that the Moral Law forever binds all. The Covenant of Works, I would presume, bears some relationship to natural law for any reformed exponent thereof. I am trying to unpack what the light of nature would give us beyond roberts rules of Order.
    The Normitivity of Norms is wisdom based, right? And, the kind of norms “Common to human actions and societies,” since about, say 325 AD has been to read the bible and apply God’s law to society (very poorly, but not always). It has been to derive a common law from a combo of ancient pagan laws and Biblical Revelation, as well as Canon Law, and other legislation. Apparently the confederation of the Native Americans in New York influenced something about our Constitutional design. Great.
    If holding that the BIble is normative makes one a theonomist, call me a theonomist. I was RP Before being Theonomic. I rejected theonomy in the name of Covenanterism. So, if there is a “Right” to the Theonomic Movement, I may have been there. But, I’m neither a pure theonomist, nor a true Covenanter. But, you got me there - Scripture is the NORM for all who come under its proclamation. Yep.

33. Anthony Cowley

    June 30th, 2007 at 11:54 am

    Caleb - How silly to quote the very worst thing C.S. Lewis may ever have written. I ran across that not too long ago, and was embarrased for him, not Jesus and Matthew.
    Jesus Came back in AD 70 and destroyed Jeruslaem, fulfilling Matt 24:1-33. At least sort of mostly. Sure, he is coming again. The general resurrection is yet to be fulfilled. All of Christ’s enemies have to be put under his feet.
    But, Caleb, don’t miss AD 70!!! And, don’t dismiss it as some sort of non-event. It was the final end of the world of the Jews “as a body politic.” During that 30-70 period, Paul and other Christians could continue in good conscience to worship at the temple, to take vows there. Hebrews said that it was passing away, but it had not yet become fully defunct, or totally illegitimate. Jesus gave them grace ,and time to repent, or store up wrath for that day of wrath.
    There is a lot of decent literature out there on this. In fact, R.C. Sproul’s book _The Last Days According to Jesus_ starts where you seem to itch (though it is by no means my favorite on this topic. I love the old Dutch J. Marcellus Kik, and greatly enjoyed Mathieson on this - but there are lots of great treatments of this position).
    I am sad and embarrased that you’ve not realized how little there is to be embarrased about wrt Mt. 24. In fact, it is one of the proofs of Christ’s being a true prophet! Have you not heard this before?
    Blessings,
    Tony

34. Anthony Cowley

    June 30th, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    Caleb:
    I just want to add, on your behalf, the information that what I wrote above about AD 70 as a coming of Christ is not new thinking. The RP Seminary used Milton Terry’s book on Biblical Hermeneutics turn of the century. While most RPs in the early 10s-20s-30s-40s-50s were still Postmillennial (Vos really brought the A-millennialism into play, I mean J.G. Vos, the RP, son of Gerhaadus, the Princetonian, Vos-who, BTW, called himself a postmillennialist. I call myself a Chastened Postmillennialist somewhat in his mold, though really he is amillennial in modern parlance), they tended to be historic postmils. Terry was an interesting guy. He was premillennial, but a preterist. So, Jesus came back in AD 70. I’d say that he was a mild heretic on this point. I have the impression that Terry looked forward to something more than just the on-going state of affairs - a time when the kingdom would be handed over to the Father by Jesus which was yet future. Anyway, Others went further, and there is a full blown “Hyper” or “Consistent” preterist movement out there which is Big H Heresy (Max King, et al). No resurrection of the body. No final judgement. All reduced to the personal, or the invisible, or the spiritual. Eternal Amillennialism, a-consumationism. How sad. Pitiful. I’d rather be embarrased with C.S. Lewis, than confident with Max King.
    Anyway, Caleb my man, don’t be embarrased about Paul and Peter and John expecting something to happen just because Jesus said it would. It did, and it will.

35. Caleb Stegall

    June 30th, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    Tony, yes, I am aware of all of these explanations. Please do not be sad and embarrassed for me. I quite take Lewis’s point, and do not think it necessarily a bad one: our need to impose on the Bible and Jesus and Paul, etc., a certain standard of “rightness” and “all-knowingness” often obscures access to the much more important content of their spiritual experience as it actually ocurred, and the communication of that experience.

    Could Jesus ask a question he did not know the answer to? That was the issue Lewis was dealing with.

    Regardless, the larger point still stands. Passages such as Romans 13 must be looked at in the context of a spiritual order of imminent expectation. Whether that expectation was fulfilled in 70 AD or whether it had to be modified due to it being “wrong” in some sense, these changes must contribute to our understanding of what symbols might now best communicate the true content of Paul’s underlying engendering spiritual experience.

36. D Hart

    July 1st, 2007 at 7:49 am

    Caleb, about this larger point. The imminence of Christ’s return is still important, I think, for appropriating Rom. 13 today. It is why I began the series on A Secular Faith with a point about eschatology.

    You seem to suggest that because the first Christians turned out to be wrong about the proximity of Christ’s return, then their disregard of more enduring forms of social arrangement are also passe. But I read Paul to teach that whenever Christ returns, his ultimate exaltation renders futile all efforts to arrive at a permanent social order. As fundy as it sounds, this world is passing away and will eventually become a who new world order that only Christ’s return will secure. I take this to mean that Christendom was as provisional as the United States is. And all of that provisionality comes from the truth that Christ will come again to judge the quick and the dead.

37. Caleb Stegall

    July 2nd, 2007 at 7:10 am

    Darryl, I imagine this covers the 3% of our disagreement (as opposed to other 97% of this dicussion covering matters on which we agree). But it’s an important 3%.

    Yes, this life is provisional, mundane, and passing away. But it is not likely to pass away in our lifetimes, and we do not live as if it is likely. The Bible, to paraphrase Justice Jackson, is not a suicide pact. For those who take literally the admonition to lose one’s life, and forgive me for saying so, I would expect more than merely writing books about it.

    So yes, I consider disregard for more enduring forms of social arrangements to be discolored by an overly-imminent expectation of the Kingdom Come. Secondarily, I have high expectations for those who have such a radical expectation; I expect them to live like they mean it. I have a very hard time accepting those who posture radically and then enjoy the fruits of good order that come from others’ “dirty hands.”

    This can lead in many unhealthy directions, but to give two examples pertinent to this discussion: 1) it can lead to the easy kicking around of passages such as Romans 13 in the context of decidedly disordered social arrangements (I have heard Hussein’s Iraq mentioned more than once). There were many in the German Church who relied on Romans 13 to justify their non-resistence in the 1930s. BTW, what do you make of Bonhoeffer? 2) it leads to a pretty radical anti-Catholicism which assumes that pretty much everything from Constantine to Luther was un-Christian.

38. Anthony Cowley

    July 2nd, 2007 at 1:10 pm

    Two Covenanters, probably Caleb’s relatives (via the Elliot connection?) deal with Roman’s 13. Father and Son. Radical Covenanters - Take a look at James M. Willson’s treatment of Rom 13 below…

    James Renwick Willson (Father)
    http://www.covenanter.org/JRWillson/writtenlaw.htm
    http://www.covenanter.org/JRWillson/subjectionofkings.htm

    James McLeod Willson (JR’s Son)
    http://www.covenanter.org/JMWillson/CivilGovt/civilgovernment.htm
    This explosive exposition of Romans 13 may not be 100% correct, but it is an argument to which anyone must appeal, to some degree, for the right of revolution. Willson needs to be read more, not less.
    One short quote from the final section:
    “That the consent of the people is necessary to render a government legitimate, we strenuously maintain; but this passage (Rom 13) makes no reference to this aspect of the question. It deals with the duty of subjection, and by a very clear and comprehensive exhibition of the true nature, functions and character of government, both enforces and limits the duty.”

    Wish I had more time.
    Tony

39. D Hart

    July 2nd, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    Caleb, how do you know what I do in my prayer closet? (Which is likely where I would have been while Bonhoeffer was out buying a pistol.)

    Maybe I can reduce the disagreement to 2% by saying that I share your aversion to using Rom. 13 to justify disordered social arrangements. I’ve even heard advocates of revival say “bring it on” in regard to greater social chaos becuase it makes more people ready for the gospel. My response if I had kids would be, “not with my children.” I do think the kind of care for order that parents exhibit in regard to their children is appropriate to the kind of concern we should give to culture and politics. Otherwise, we would want to rear drug addicts so they’ll have a really moving and profound conversion.

    Second, I’m not sure if I consider Christendom exactly Christian but I certainly believe there were admirable bits that are worthy of emulation and recovery. My understanding of the paradoxical relationship between cult and culture goes all the way down. Protestant culture gets no more of a pass with me than Christendom. In fact, I find Protestant whiggism objectionable(as I indicated in a talk at RPTS this past weekend.)

    But I simply can’t throw about the phrase “permanent things” the way some traditionalists do. Even the very good aspects of the West, I believe, are still impermanent. Even so, I’d join Luther in responding to the question of what I would do today if I knew the Lord was to return tomorrow, “I’d plant a tree.” Well, maybe not. But I sure wouldn’t cut one down.

40. Caleb Stegall

    July 2nd, 2007 at 3:49 pm

    Darryl, if your only claim is the very modest one that this age is one that is passing away, then we will have acheived 100% agreement.

    It is the more radical conclusions you at times gesture towards and then retreat from which raise concerns.

    Perhaps this is a pedagogical technique to instill appreciation for the tension. It could also be construed as wanting to have one’s cake and eat it too.

41. D Hart

    July 3rd, 2007 at 7:59 am

    Caleb, I’m not sure what to make of modesty or radicalism. Frankly, a side of me really likes the edginess of Christ’s own words about his disciples needing to hate their fathers and mothers. And then there is the mild-mannered side that gives one-and-a-half cheers for liberalism. Call it inconsistent, call it conflicted. But I am very wary of those who don’t recognize the tension between the permanent and impermanent things. That could give the appearance of standing above it all. I think my own practice and convictions as a conservative and Presbyterian say otherwise. I simply don’t want to see my faith reduced to conservatism (of any kind).

42. Baus

    August 20th, 2007 at 10:21 pm

    Hart wrote:
    “[Kline], who wrote the OPC minority report [against] medical missions is a theologian who stands some distance from redeeming all the spheres, including medicine.”

    This is evidence that Hart refuses to do his homework and find out what Kuyperians mean by redemption in culture. In point of fact, the Kuyperian principle of societal sphere sovereignty utterly supports the doctrine of the “spiritual” mission of the church, and militates against medical “missions” operated by the church. When will Hart interact with actual Kuyperian scholarship (I suggest Roy Clouser’s The Myth Of Religious Neutrality), rather than reply to inaccurate caricature by anecdote?

43. D Hart

    August 21st, 2007 at 8:59 pm

    That’s always the way with Kuyperians. You disagree and you get bad grades for not turning in class work. Pardon me, but I didn’t know this was class.

    Baus, I’ve read Wolters, Wolterstorff, Plantinga, Middleton, and I read the Reformed Journal for almost 15 years. I was probably reading neo-Calvinists before you could spell the word. Why don’t we simply stick to the argument at hand rather than citing other people’s works that need to be read. I mean, how would this go if I had said Baus doesn’t really know what he’s talking about because he hasn’t read Machen, Dabney, Turretin, Calvin, and VanDrunen? Or does the anti-thesis simply run down the line between those in fellowship with Provost of Calvin College and those who aren’t?

    So please answer the question, isn’t justification the highest expression of divine glory? If the eternal son of God came to save the elect and his life and death and resurrection are the only hope for salvation, how would you ever see God’s glory apart from justification?

44. Baus

    August 21st, 2007 at 11:29 pm

    I think it is fair to discover if I’m familiar with a view I’m trying to dialog with. If certain writers in fact represent your position, and I’m constantly misrepresenting your position based on other writers and ideas that I (erroneously) suppose represent your view, I think its fair for you to make suggestions to try and direct me in the direction your actually going. You should know that I have/do read Machen, Dabney, Turretin, Calvin, and VanDrunen. I also enjoy books written by you.

    You frequently misrepresent the positions that I recommended. As I pointed out just now, you suggest that Kuyperian transformationalism advocates medical-ecclesiastical missions as a way of redeeming culture. But you are quite wrong about that.
    You also say neocalvinist’s don’t often speak of consummation. This too shows your unfamiliarity. For instance, Richard Gaffin critiqued Gordon Spykman for addressing consummation distinctly, as neocalvinist’s often do, rather than addressing the now&not-yet both under redemption. Creation-Fall-Redemption-Consummation can be found commonly in neocalvinist literature.

    It may be helpful to know that Wolterstorff and Plantinga are “Reformed Epistemologists” not neocalvinists.
    Although historically associated with a few neocalvinistic figures (Henry Meeter and Evan Runner), Calvin College has very little to do with neocalvinism. In the past 30 years, not many at Calvin College care to associate with neocalvinists.

    Anyway, you ask: is justification the highest expression of divine glory? Not really, no. I think I’ve said that. First of all, God’s self-glorification has no “lower” degrees, in a manner of speaking. Secondly, your truncation of full salvation to “rendered-forgiven-overagainst-made-obedient” is unbiblical. It works as shorthand for justification, but justification and (applied) salvation (which also includes effectual calling, adoption, sanctification, and glorification, and the benefits that accompany or flow from them) are not equivalents.
    Of course no one will experience salvation apart from God’s act of justifying them. Who’s debating that point?

    I would very much like to have fruitful discussion with you and others on these important topics. It’s a little disappointing that you seem somewhat reluctant to hear that maybe you’ve got the wrong idea about Dooyeweerdianism and Kuyperianism (or at least the old confessionally orthodox version I’m advocating here). I’m open to learn from you (and others). Pardon me, but I expect as much from others (and you). Sure, you’ve been around twice as long as me. But maybe I’m right when I say that you apparently don’t know much about neocalvinism. Look, it’s nothing personal.

45. D Hart

    August 22nd, 2007 at 7:42 am

    Baus, how is it not personal to say “you don’t know what you’re talking about”?

    For the record, I appealed to the question of medical missions to show that you cannot have Meredith Kline as a pure transformationalist, not to suggest that neo-Calvinists want to redeem medicine. I forgot. They want to redeem television. (Or does a faculty member at Calvin College not qualify as evidence of such redemptive ambition?)

    The difficulty we may be having is that you want to wrap yourself in the pure teaching of Dooyeweerd when you are really surrounded by a lot of neo-Calvinists who do not know Dooeyweerd from schinola. I am not critiquing simply one author or one line of Dutch Calvinism. I am complaining about a general phenomenon that includes folks from Wolterstorff to Nancy Pearcey that speaks about redeeming all aspects of life because to limit redemption to the sacred or religious sphere is to be unfaithful. (Hence the repudiation of dualism as fundamentalist.) Is not Al Wolters a transformationalist? How about Pearcey? And if you don’t like those transformers, why don’t you spread a little of your dismissiveness to the other bloggers on this site as much as you point out my lack of time to read another book on how I really should know better (as in epistemology)? Unless I missed it, the Christian politics of the anti-W2K writers is just fine with you. But that’s right, it’s all about epistemology with “true” neo-Calvinists. (Funny how that idealist epistemology has a history, and a fairly recent one at that, say, starting around Kant and Hegel. But I must not really know this because I haven’t had the neo-Calvinist second blessing.)

46. Phil

    August 22nd, 2007 at 11:56 am

    Darryl said, “I am complaining about a general phenomenon that includes folks from Wolterstorff to Nancy Pearcey that speaks about redeeming all aspects of life because to limit redemption to the sacred or religious sphere is to be unfaithful. (Hence the repudiation of dualism as fundamentalist.)”

    From a transformational view, you have probably cut to the center of what makes transformationalists tick.

    What is at the center of what makes W2K tick?

47. Baus

    August 22nd, 2007 at 3:08 pm

    Mr. Hart,
    It’s not personal because we’re not talking about anyone personally. We’re discussion viewpoints. It’s an academic discussion, and I have heard you to say “Baus holds to X” when I don’t or “Neocalvinism is X” when it isn’t. So, I don’t take it personally, I just say “Hart is wrong about X. As a neocalvinist, I hold to Y.”

    As far as I know, I’m the only respondent for a neocalvinist position on this blog. If anyone else has identified themselves here as neocalvinist, do let me know.

    Accept for Jamie Smith –who is not really a neocalvinist himself because of his not being a Calvinist and his sympathy for Radical Orthodoxy and Anabaptism– I don’t know a single person at Calvin College who is considered neocalvinist. Who are you talking about?

    I have already said:
    “…not all approaches that go by the name “transformational” are the same.
    The neocalvinism I represent may be fairly called a transformationalism, but it is not to be confused with the barely whitewashed new-leftism of so many GrandRapids [CRC/Calvin] and Toronto [ICS] pseudo-Kuyperians who abandoned an orthodox reformed confessional stance a generation ago. If Bob Godfrey, for one, can read Kuyper and tell the difference between those faithfully in his line and those who have betrayed that heritage, we are comfortable holding his colleagues to the same standard of precision.

    The transformationalism of neocalvinism is simply not a golden-age’ism (or even a semi-gold vision). Sweeping generalizations against non2k views as theocratic are really getting stale.”

    I’m not here to articulate a general phenomenon. However, I do think the principles Al Wolters discusses are sound. I don’t think I have trouble with Pearcey. Wolterstorff is not of us.

    I am not just fine with the Christian politics of anti-2k respondents on this site. I have offered criticism of the initial presentations by Chellis’ “National Confessionalism”. I will make a greater effort to criticize other non-neocalvinist views.

    James Skillen did a pretty decent job interacting with alternatives 20 years ago in his book “The Scattered Voice.” He critiques “Christian America,” “Conservatism,” “Liberalism,” “Civil-Right’ism & Social Activism,” and “Theonomic Reconstructionism.”
    Noll called the book “a landmark book–for breadth of analysis, charity of interpretation, and clarity of vision.”
    working link for study guide

    I will do my best to be more even-handed. I appreciate your interacting with me on this.

48. Baus

    August 22nd, 2007 at 3:16 pm

    Let’s try that study guide link again HERE.
    archived

49. D Hart

    August 22nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm

    I’m confused. First I need to do my homework, and now I find that Wolters and Pearcey are neo-Calvinists. Somewhere on this site I seem to recall being dinged for insinuating that neo-Calvinists talk about re-creation instead of consummation. But now I hear that Wolters and Pearcey, who speak in terms of re-creation, are neo-Calvinists. As I say, I’m confused.

    I’m also having trouble seeing the difference between Dooyeweerd, who places a lot of weight on epistemology as I’ve understood him, and Wolterstorff and Plantinga, who are Reformed epistemologists. How divisive the work of integralism can be. If the folks at Calvin don’t qualify as neo-Calvinist then someone needs to give me a scorecard. Granted, I recognize the difference between Wolterstorff and Godfrey. But both the orthodox and heterodox Kuyperians think that you can’t separate religion into a separate sphere. I say that the entire notion of sanctifying the Sabbath breaks down unless you can separate the holy into a separate sphere.

    Baus, just out of curiosity, what do think of Phil’s assertion that I have cut to the heart of the problem in the following statement? “I am complaining about a general phenomenon that includes folks from Wolterstorff to Nancy Pearcey that speaks about redeeming all aspects of life because to limit redemption to the sacred or religious sphere is to be unfaithful. (Hence the repudiation of dualism as fundamentalist.)”

    Phil, I think that what is at the center of W2K is a desire to defend the gospel. Most of the examples of redeeming culture in Christian history have resulted in serious blurring of the gospel with laudible even if flawed efforts to improve, reform, or legislate. When eliminating slavery and oppression becomes synonymous with true Christian liberty, you have a recipe for serious heterodoxy.

50. Phil

    August 22nd, 2007 at 6:15 pm

    Darryl, the “unfaithful” section in the prior paragraph heads in a gospel direction, but differently. Here’s a transformational take on things. This is meant to be a sketch, not an argument:

    1. Jesus Christ is lord over all flesh today, and our salvation rests on this universal lordship (John 17:2). W2K truncates Christ’s lordship in order to “save” the gospel.

    2. Man’s natural condition is rebellious, and this rebellion is not bracketed: “every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5; cf. 8:21). Our every thought is therefore in need of sanctification. W2K denies that LHK thoughts need Christ’s gracious work, thus adopting a severely weakened view of depravity.

    I guess you could say both sides here see themselves as defending the gospel.

    I do not see eliminating slavery and oppression as synonymous with Christian liberty; certainly it’s different from Calvin on liberty. But surely these are instances of loving our neighbors and so are part of Christ’s commands, hence obedience to the Great Commission.

51. D Hart

    August 22nd, 2007 at 9:01 pm

    Phil, how do you drive down the road? If every man is a rebel, aren’t you worried when you leave the house? Or isn’t it possible for people to commit some acts of civic virtue? Even Christ taught that wicked fathers and judges were capable of showing mercy (the parable about the elderly woman asking for bread). Does that deny the fall?

52. Phil

    August 23rd, 2007 at 11:32 am

    Darryl, transformation does not imply ABSOLUTE depravity, but it does assume TOTAL depravity in which “the inherent corruption extends to every part of man’s nature, to all the faculties and powers of both soul and body.”

    Calvin: “Paul himself leaves no room for doubt, when he says, that corruption does not dwell in one part only, but that no part is free from its deadly taint. For, speaking of corrupt nature, he not only condemns the inordinate nature of the appetites, but, in particular, declares that the understanding is subjected to blindness, and the heart to depravity” (2.1.9).

    Depravity is thus extensive but not intensive. Therefore I expect to find the fruits of the Fall in every human endeavor, whether in the Right Hand or the Left Hand Kingdom, but not fully developed in this life. Thus we should not be surprised if Hitler or Stalin were kind to their dogs.

    W2K seems to deny that depravity extends to those parts of men and women especially employed in the Left Hand Kingdom. Am I mistaken?

53. D Hart

    August 26th, 2007 at 8:06 am

    Phil, yes you’re mistaken (not sinful in your error). Why would you think that W2K ever denies the fall to those in the secular world? I often have to emphasize that the redeemed are also still fallen and that our good works are still filthy rags (see WCF 16.5). This point about the bad good works of Christians has enomormous implications for assertions about a Christian world view or a Christian way of doing something cultural. If we’re still sinful and if sin even affects our good works, then why do we think that Christian art or politics is going to be so wholesome.

    But neither does such sinfulness make the good works of Christians or unChristians unprofitable. Christian parents err in rearing their children. That doesn’t mean we take kids away from their parents. In fact, we don’t even take kids away from non-Christian parents, except in extraordinary circumstances. Their depravity does not delegitimize their authority. Believe it or not, the same goes for Caesar.

    Or do you really seem to think that only people who are without moral defect are worthy of our respect, obedience, courtesy, or trust?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.