11.24.2021

Dooyeweerd Against Vax Mandates

Originally published at The Laymen's Lounge.
German translation: https://www.libertaerechristen.de/?p=1840

Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) was a Reformed Christian philosopher and legal scholar from the Netherlands. For more about his life and work, see this article.

Before the bulk of his career as professor at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam from 1926-1965, Dooyeweerd spent about 5 years as director of the Kuyper Foundation, the policy institute of the Anti-Revolutionary Party. From 1922-1926 he produced several reports, including one in 1923 concerning compulsory or mandated vaccination by the civil government.

The report begins by saying that while some members of the political party are opposed to taking vaccinations, and others are themselves in favor of it, as a party they strongly oppose all civil government coercion of vaccination. Particularly, the party consistently opposes all mandates of vaccination for government school attendance when the civil government requires schooling.

Dooyeweerd then lays out 5 main reasons all civil government coercion of vaccinations must be resisted and opposed.

  1. Compulsory vaccination violates God-given liberty of conscience.
  2. Only each person, and not civil government, has a God-given right as steward over one’s own body.
  3. Civil government has no God-given competence or jurisdiction to rule on medical/health issues.
  4. Native or endemic illnesses are never rightly treated by means of any coercion.
  5. Medical science can be flawed, and vaccinations can be more harmful than the illnesses they are intended to prevent.

The bulk of the report deals with the second main reason that coercive vaccination must be resisted and opposed. Dooyeweerd puts it this way: Civil “government does not have free disposition of the human body, even if it is convinced that such disposition is only for the benefit of that body.

The term ‘disposition’ here refers to legitimate power or determination over something according to one’s own decision. In Matthew 20:15 where Jesus gives the parable about a generous employer, He illustrates “free disposition” asking rhetorically “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?”

Dooyeweerd explains that responsive coercion is legitimate, of course, against anyone who is conclusively proved to be initiating coercion upon others. But simply being unvaccinated is not coercive in any way. Moreover, even if civil government officers were angelic geniuses who had infallible knowledge of what is best for you, and were entirely motivated by your best interest, even then they could never have the right to initiate coercion against you, because you don’t belong to them.

The issue here is not a matter of whether just laws should be enforced, but of what kind of legislation is actually just. And whether something is actually just or unjust is not ordained by civil government, but by God. Of course, the God-ordained principles of civil justice don’t enact legislation by themselves, but rather show the proper boundaries and provide guidance for legislation.

The main principle to which Dooyeweerd points is the Christian understanding of human beings as created by God as persons. (What he refers to as “ethical” personhood, he would soon, in the development of his philosophy, come to call the full “religious” personhood of every human). The first thing Dooyeweerd emphasizes is that this principle is in diametric opposition to slavery. Even though it might seem like an extreme comparison, vaccine compulsion is an expression of the same root as the evil of slavery (namely, the claim of owning, and/or having a right to control other people).

Most commonly, in the 'classical liberal' or libertarian European political tradition that appreciates the inseparable connection between liberty and justice (the tradition of which the American founders, as well as Kuyper and Groen, were a part), this principle has come to be known as 'self-ownership'.

But Dooyeweerd is concerned to describe it in terms of its fundamental, true religious grounding. While with respect to other people, it may be said you are indeed the proper 'owner' of yourself (the alternative being slavery), in relation to our Creator to Whom we are ultimately accountable, we are only the respective stewards, the keepers and caretakers, each of our own lives. This is doubly so for those redeemed by Christ (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

The political bottom line of this, Dooyeweerd insists, is the fact that civil “government may not, according to God’s ordinances, force the ethically free man to accept physical treatment in any form.”

We must entirely resist all such government injustice from the start, without hesitation or compromise, or else it will inevitably grow like a cancer. This is the principle of obsta principiis. You must have a zero-tolerance policy towards tyranny. “Whoever accepts compulsory vaccination in principle,” Dooyeweerd warns, “has deprived himself of the moral ground for opposing [any] such usurpation by government of individual liberty.”

For a statement of principles influenced by Dooyeweerd’s philosophy that seeks to develop opposition to tyranny more fully, see here.

 

10.10.2021

more on Romans 13

 and political resistance

Here I am discussing with PresbyCast the historical Reformed view that we are not obligated to "submit to civil rulers unless they require sin."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC95p88UzKg


     0:14 music intro
     1:30 Wresby's intro
     2:28 Chortles intros guest
     8:17 topic intro
   10:30 recent events
   12:40 clip from NY governor statement
   17:30 Rom13 often misunderstood
   25:28 why Reformed view not taught
   28:19 lesser magistrates
   30:28 Paul's example
   37:57 wrong view deeply ingrained
   39:30 helpful bibliography
   43:35 defining 'tyranny'
   55:14 affirmed in Reformed Confessions
1:02:29 Scotland's tyranny
1:11:55 confessional summary
1:15:06 what to do
1:22:52 the Boetie strategy
1:27:01 final remarks
1:35:38 Wresby's outro


0:14 music intro

1:30 Wresby's intro

2:28 Chortles intros guest
+ about Gregory: https://sites.google.com/site/ideolog/

+ Reformed 'mongrel': 1 Cor 3:21-23 "whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas... all are yours"

8:17 topic intro
+ any ostensibly confessional Reformed church that teaches "people are obligated to obey the (providential) de facto powers that claim civil authority, unless they require sin" are contradicting the historical Reformed teaching promulgated in the Reformed doctrinal standards (on the teaching of Scripture)

+central point is not political theory, but exegesis and the teaching of Scripture

10:30 recent events
+ regrettably, some Reformed churches have enacted policies with the rationale that in these things they must "obey govt requirements"

12:40 clip from NY governor statement
+ "I need you to be my apostles [to promote the vax]"
https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/tag/Kathy+Hochul

17:30 Why shouldn't NAPARC (or other orthodox Reformed) congregations do whatever a civil governor says? How has Rom 13 been misunderstood?
+ some indulge in false piety

+ important difference between policy based on church-determined prudential considerations vs. supposed obligation to civil edicts (even if 'constitutional')

+ historical Reformed teaching is that Scripture, in such passages as Rom 13, does not require anyone to acknowledge de facto (providential) powers/persons that claim civil authority as actually ordained by God

+ rather, we should know that what God actually ordains (prescriptively, not providentially) specified in verses 3-4 is the legitimate (office) use of responsive coercion (the sword) to punish wrongdoers (those who commit civil injustice)

+ any de facto power that oversteps this limited God-ordained jurisdiction is unlawful or exercising unlawful power (so, themselves wrongdoers), and no one's conscience should be bound to obey in such matters

25:28 Why hasn't this been taught in churches and seminaries in America?
+ influence of theological liberalism

+ particular influence of govt propaganda in recruiting churches to promote (unlawful) war efforts (at least since WWI)

+ heretical groups were more faithful in opposing unjust wars than otherwise true churches; this is a shame

28:19 What about doctrine of 'lesser magistrates' (eg, Magdeburg Confession)?
+ certainly, while all magistrates have obligation to oppose tyranny, in this case Reformers were addressing a particular civil constitutional arrangement, and resisting tyrants is not only for lesser magistrates

30:28 Scriptural example of disobeying civil rulers when not an issue of sin
+ 2 Cor 11:32-33; Acts 9:25

+ submitting to arrest is not a sin, but Paul evades arrest, and so he resists rulers when they weren't requiring him to sin, and Paul's actions are not condemned

+ this confirms that Paul isn't teaching in Rom 13 that we are obligated to submit to rulers only unless they require sin

37:57 this is important because the erroneous [edit] "providential" view is so ingrained in our minds and in the popular consciousness

39:30 Reformed Political Resistance Theology Annotated Bibliography
https://tinyurl.com/RefoPoliResistBib

+ a Scriptural teaching also found in Patristic era

+ explained in Francis Schaeffer's 1981 book A Christian Manifesto
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1581346921

43:35 How do we define 'tyranny'?
+ Reformed anarchism on this point: https://tinyurl.com/refoanarchism
(monopolization of civil governance functions, ie the 'state', is inherently, systemically unjust/tyrannical)

+ basic principle: what God prescriptively ordains as civil govt is limited to punishment of wrongdoers

+ Scripture teaches no political theory as such, and particulars of what is involved (and what is outside the God-ordained limit) must be discerned (from creation or general revelation) by believers

+ C.Hodge (1835) says "the right of deciding on all these points, and determining where the obligation to obedience ceases, and the duty of resistance begins, must, from the nature of the case, rest with the subject, and not with the ruler"

+ if taxes are properly due for limited function, it follows that taxes for other things are not due. Also, no Scripture teaches we owe taxes, but only that if we owe, we should pay what we owe

+ Reformers advised we should understand 'tyranny' generally as not simply a single act of civil injustice by a would-be ruler (tho that is tyrannous, may be resisted, and should be punished), but habitual or systemic civil injustice (including among other things, failure to punish wrongdoers and violations of the God-ordained limited 'jurisdiction')

55:14 A view taught by the Reformed Confessions
+ not invented by Rutherford

+ separable from 'establishmentarianism'
(credit due to Savoy congregationalists and London baptists for getting this correct before most Presbies)

+ WCF 20.4 "lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it"

1:02:29 clip from London Calling podcast. Why is Scotland presently so authoritarian/tyrannical?
+ while there are other sources of authoritarianism and its stockholm-ish internalization, certainly secularized "puritanism"/pietism and millennialism/millenarianism immanentizes zeal for God and the consummation into statist idolatry.
See "the secularization of postmillennialism": https://www.jstor.org/stable/2711630

+ one distortion of a "two kingdoms" view also erroneously tends to give civil government carte blanche

1:11:55 summary of Reformed Confessional statements
https://tinyurl.com/refoanarchism
(See 3.g.)

1:15:06 What can Reformed church officers and other members do?
+ many Reformed pastors and elders may have never learned or even heard about the historical "prescriptive" (non-providential) view

+ if you cannot bear the policies in your congregation, leave peaceably and find a congregation with better policies if possible

+ you can also have a peaceable and pragmatic discussion about policies without raising the exegetical issues

+ however, if you want to discuss with church officers about their view of whether they think Scripture obligates us "to submit to those who claim civil authority unless they require sin", then the bibliography is a great place to start

1:22:52 So then what, violent revolt?
+ 1553 work Discourse on Voluntary Servitude by Etienne de la Boetie (friend of Montaigne) presents our strategy, namely, ignore the tyrants.
a. https://mises.org/library/political-thought-etienne-de-la-boetie
b. https://mises.org/library/politics-obedience-discourse-voluntary-servitude

+ Ignoring them (also practiced in "nullification" and "secession") is our first line of defense, and it is in keeping with the Bible's exhortation to "live peaceably with all, so far as it depends on you"

1:27:01 final remarks
+ will address other objections in future blog post: https://honest2blog.blogspot.com/

+ key links
a. Reformed political resistance theology bibliography: https://tinyurl.com/RefoPoliResistBib
b. Baus article on Romans 13: https://tinyurl.com/r13civgov
c. audio (on which the article is based): https://tinyurl.com/r13anarchism
d. What is Reformed anarchism? : https://tinyurl.com/refoanarchism
e. further resources: https://mereliberty.com/romans13

+ no one minds extra hand sanitizer

+ 'zero C19' will never be

+ build back better theology (with the historical Reformed view of Rom 13)

1:35:38 Wresby's outro
+ don't be an Erdman

 

10.05.2021

more on sphere sovereignty

Here I am discussing societal sphere sovereignty with Jacob Winograd of the Daniel 3: Biblical Anarchy podcast.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCDyfRIH-_c


     1:05 beginning
     3:10 about Gregory
     6:40 becoming anarchist
   13:36 helpful arguments
   17:03 sphere sovereignty intro
   18:44 historical background
   30:45 sphere sovereignty explained
   55:31 Summary
1:03:44 What is civil governance?
1:32:12 sphere sovereignty related to 'spontaneous order'
1:44:03 Can we know God is real?

1:05 beginning
https://daniel318.com/

3:10 about Gregory
        profile: https://sites.google.com/site/ideolog/
        previous appearance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm_wh1ndsxw

6:40 becoming anarchist
        Foundations of Libertarian Ethics: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZo7TOFxgEMP4iRDHidY_PR7AKwwfQO4g
        and https://mises.org/library/foundations-libertarian-ethics

13:36 helpful arguments
https://mereliberty.com/romans13
https://libertarianchristians.com/2018/02/21/anarchism-minarchism-legitimacy-civil-governance/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua

17:03 sphere sovereignty intro
        + Christian theory, not exegesis

18:44 historical background
        + basic definition: a view of the normative arrangement among and relations between different kinds of societal communities

        + Guillaume Groen van Prinsterer (1801 - 1876) introduced the phrase 'sovereignty within one's own sphere/circle'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Groen_van_Prinsterer
        part of the European Calvinist revival (Réveil) of 1820s

        + Abraham Kuyper (1837 - 1920) developed the idea further
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Kuyper
        1880 lecture on Sphere Sovereignty: https://sources.neocalvinism.org/kuyper/?ka_num=1993.02

        + Herman Dooyeweerd (1894 - 1977) refined it philosophically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Dooyeweerd
        More on Dooyeweerd and his philosophy: https://thelaymenslounge.com/you-should-know-dooyeweerd/

        other predecessors
        + Althusius (1557 - 1638)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Althusius
        + Alsted (1588 - 1638)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Heinrich_Alsted

        + arose in terms of the questions of the relation between church and state (and properly defining and limiting their respective powers) after the medieval period

        + Reformed political resistance theology
https://tinyurl.com/RefoPoliResistBib

        + like a kind of 'division of labor' among communities

30:45 sphere sovereignty explained
        + What Is Reformed Anarchism statement: https://tinyurl.com/refoanarchism
        See especially part 2 on What is society?

        + Scriptural teaching about basic diversity of created reality ('each according to its own kind')

        + Kuyper's 1869 article "Uniformity: the curse of modern life"; about the dreary artificial sameness imposed on things in the statist/collectivistic mindset: https://sources.neocalvinism.org/kuyper/?ka_num=1869.14

        + Scriptural 'organic' metaphor about differentiated functions coordinated variously

        + society is not a single whole, rather it is several different kinds of relations involving both individuals and groups; neither is more basic or has their origin in the other

        + community is not just individuals (or inter-individual relation), rather it is relatively more enduring and involves authority arrangements

        + individuals are not mere parts of communities, but wholes in themselves

        + each kind of community is distinguished from other kinds by its own intrinsic nature, differently characterized in its organization and purpose, governed by its own God-given norms

        + no single kind of community properly encompasses or regulates all the others. Nor does any particular community of a given kind properly encompass or regulate all the others of that same kind

        + not a collectivistic view of so-called ‘subsidiarity,’ which, while seeking to be bottom-up, affirming that the lowest level of organization has original jurisdiction, nevertheless subsumes all societal communities (as so-called ‘mediating institutions’) under an all-encompassing state

55:31 Summary:
        1. real communities; distinct kinds
        2. each kind of community (sphere) has its own directly God-normed intrinsic nature, scope of activity, competence, and limited authority
        3. society not a single whole merely decentralized or bottom-up (not hierarchically arranged 'subsidiarity')
        4. within a given sphere, no particular community encompasses or regulates others of the same kind

        + a state’s monopoly is in principle totalitarian, and always increasingly tends toward totalitarianism in practice

1:03:44 What is civil governance?
        
(see part 3 of What is Reformed Anarchism statement)

        + Only God in Christ is absolutely sovereign; this biblical teaching entails that no mere human authority is properly total (and so the monopoly state is inherently antinormative)

        + Gregory's paper on sphere sovereignty: https://www.academia.edu/32356017
        2008 conference presentation: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL083BD24DE7A4559E

        + even Christians are sinners who might sinfully seek to justify abuse by appeal to authority; total depravity is REAL
https://libertarianchristians.com/2018/03/28/sinful-nature-question-states-necessity/
        Sproul on 'total depravity':
        a. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvUpyxnqAow
        b. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPVkhssUv5I

        + response to theonomy
        Kline's article on theocracy: https://meredithkline.com/klines-works/articles-and-essays/the-relevance-of-the-theocracy/
        Lee Irons' article: https://www.the-highway.com/theonomy-hermeneutic_Irons.html
        Lane Tipton's article: https://www.kerux.com/doc/1501A1.asp
        T. David Gordon's article: https://web.archive.org/web/20200718055717/http://tdgordon.net/theology/theonomy.pdf

        + Upper Register podcast
https://www.youtube.com/user/IronsLee
https://upperregister.podbean.com/
        Lee Irons' website: https://upper-register.com
        series on covenantal history: https://upper-register.com/mp3s.html#unfolding

        + seeking to coercively enforce moral law (beyond proper civil-justicial rights) outside the old covenant is a usurping of God's sole prerogative, and amounts to statist pagan idolatry

1:32:12 sphere sovereignty related to 'spontaneous order'
        See Reformed Anarchism statement, especially 2.c (and following) on Polycentric and Emergent Order
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/liggio-literature-of-liberty-summer-1982-vol-5-no-2/

        + the broader 'polycentric societal complex' is coordinated emergently, through the self-governance of each instance of the varieties of relations and each particular community of the several distinct kinds

        +by God’s creational design, a dynamic societal harmonization comes about cumulatively through the varieties of normative human action, but apart from any human individual’s or community’s specific intention or attempt at comprehensive coercive regulation

        + Also see a summary of spontaneous order in this 9th vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQhkrYqA7S4&list=PLwrDNUO5MDu95jfsFdfN2oe8vXQ6Cma-h&index=9

        + particular endeavors require planning, but society overall, and any sphere, is far too complex to be planned or coercively regulated; any attempt at such coercive regulation is inherently antinormative resulting in severe distortion

1:44:03 Can we know God is real?
https://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/Clouser/CanWeKnow.pdf
        See also "Knowing With The Heart": https://www.amazon.com/dp/1556354320
        and "The Myth Of Religious Neutrality" (which also deals with sphere sovereignty): https://www.amazon.com/dp/0268023662

        + teaser: "proof" (inference) is not the only means of rationally justifying a belief


7.07.2021

Audio / Video Gregory Baus

 Some youtube video / audio recordings of me talking about stuff

1. Discussion with Michael Beck of Two-Age Sojourner podcast about Meredith G. Kline's criticisms of post/modern-influenced 'monistic' views, Kline as a neocalvinist, and the resonance of Kline's theology with the philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd.
(March 2021)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JksFJK6rqUs


 


2. Answering objections to libertarian anarchism from a Reformed (Christian) perspective with fellow members of Reformed libertarianism & Reformed anarchism fb discussion groups. Nate Xanders, Kerry Baldwin, and Aaron Cuevas.
(September 2020)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaoJ8qEH6bg



3. Discussion with Jacob Winograd of Daniel 3 : Biblical Anarchy podcast about Reformed (Christian libertarian) anarchism and Romans 13.
(November 2020)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm_wh1ndsxw



4. Discussion with Craig Harguess of The Bad Roman podcast about a Reformed view of Romans 13 and stateless civil governance (aka libertarian anarchism).
(March 2021)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAE1DyQIVLQ



5. Here's my own youtube channel: https://youtube.com/c/reformational  where I have posted (among other things):

a. (2008) a presentation on Dooyeweerd's societal sphere sovereignty
b. (March 2019) a presentation on a Reformed view of libertarian anarchism and Romans 13
c. (December 2020) a book review of Faith Seeking Freedom: libertarian Christian answers to tough questions
d. (December 2020) an audio recording of What Is Reformed libertarianism/anarchism?
e. (April 2021) an audio recording of You Should Know Herman Dooyeweerd

See respective video descriptions at youtube site for further info relevant to each vid.




6.29.2021

Notes on Fesko's poor attempt to interact with Dooyeweerd

[These notes were originally written in May/Nov 2019]

I got a copy of John V. Fesko’s recent book Reforming Apologetics. I jumped to chapter 7 on “Dualisms” because he was supposed to interact with Herman Dooyeweerd’s views. Fesko's criticisms are sloppy, unsound and erroneous. Here are a few off-the-cuff comments.

p.164
Fesko cites Arvin Vos, but A.V. (in
Aquinas, Calvin and contemporary Protestant Thought) largely exonerates Dooyeweerd's analysis. Vos called him “one of the most careful among Protestant critics”(p.131). He says “There is no denying the relevance of this account; Dooyeweerd is pointing to factors that are clearly present in Aquinas’s position” (p.132).

p.168
Fesko erroneously thinks Dooyeweerd rejects the distinction between body and soul! The fact is Dooyeweerd defines body and soul in a non-scholastic, non-substance, non-form&matter way. Fesko seems totally unacquainted with Dooyeweerd's views.

p.172
Fesko misinterprets Dooyeweerd where he says "it can never become a theoretical object", by "it" meaning the non- or supra-theoretical knowledge of God in Christ (by regeneration), Fesko erroneously takes Dooyeweerd by "it" to mean "the Bible".

p.172
Fesko erroneously thinks Dooyeweerd must have rejected the Heidelberg where it speaks of body and soul, but Dooyeweerd explicitly affirms it.

p.173
Fesko erroneously takes Dooyeweerd's mention of "the key of knowledge" (again, meaning the non-theoretical knowledge of God in Christ, by regeneration, per Luke 11:52) to mean, rather, the "supratemporal origin [sic] of the heart". But that is not Dooyeweerd's view. Fesko may have picked this up from relying on, or himself misinterpreting (the sometimes dubious) interpretations of Glenn Friesen.

Fesko also seems to have adopted the erroneous position of John Frame that Dooyeweerd, somehow, does not believe in exegesis. This is a terribly infelicitous move on Fesko's part. (One of the burdens of those who are familiar with Dooyeweerd's writings must be to show this is incorrect; something I will touch on in my master's thesis, DV.)  So far, however, Fesko's fundamental misreading of Dooyeweerd's work (or, more probably of his misreading of secondary source material) is less sweeping than Frame's mischaracterizing rants.

Fesko goes on next, to try to defend Aquinas' view of body & soul as non-dualistic, by saying his view was Aristotelian, not Platonic. This entirely fails to engage Dooyeweerd's criticism of the form-matter and nature-grace motives, substance ontology, and of a scholastic view of the relation between faith and reason. Ironically, it also contradicts Fesko's suggestion that scholasticism is simply method and not theoretical content.

This essay is helpful in getting at a main point of Dooyeweerd's distinction (and relation) between "supratheoretical" religious assumptions and (theoretical) philosophical & various 'scientific' assumptions and positions. If Fesko had understood this about Dooyeweerd, Fesko's engagement with Dooyeweerd's views might have had a chance of being on point.
This Dooyeweerdian reply to a Thomist critique may also be helpful.


p.177
Fesko seems to be saying since Prot scholastics reject donum superadditum, that is sufficient for rejecting the nature-grace motive (ergo, Dooyeweerd's critique is a strawman, claims Fesko). But this is simply to miss entirely what Dooyeweerd means by the nature-grace motive.

Fesko, in fact, goes on to define and deal with his own view of a nature-grace "construct"... so he abandons dealing with Dooyeweerd's view altogether, but speaks as though he's still criticizing Dooyeweerd's view!

p.177
Fesko then says "Dooyeweerd's analysis falters on two counts: (1) he rarely, if ever, supports his claims with primary-source documentation; and (2) he erroneously defines scholasticism." [viz, as involving content, rather than 'just a method']

Fesko only cites 7 pages of Dooyeweerd's 3 volume treatment in Reformation and Scholasticism. Here’s volume 2. You can scroll on from page 147 and see for yourself if Dooyeweerd is interacting with primary sources or not. One gets the impression that Fesko is less acquainted with Dooyeweerd than the average Protestant-in-the-pew is with Aquinas.

After several pages of trying to defend scholastic content, are we really supposed to take Fesko's 2nd objection seriously?
This is laughable.

p.177
Fesko says Dooyeweerd pitted Calvin against the Calvinists, but doesn't show that the sense in which Dooyeweerd held to a specific discontinuity between Calvin and those after him is the same sense argued against by Muller.

p.178
Fesko says Dooyeweerd calls Calvin's (partially scholastic) theology "pure". Maybe. I haven't seen that. But Dooyeweerd is famous for rejecting application of the term 'pure' to almost everything, and Fesko doesn't offer a citation.

p.179
Fesko says Dooyeweerd “vilifies” moving from self-knowledge to knowledge of God. But Fesko only reveals his ignorance of Dooyeweerd's transcendental criticism (in which Dooyeweerd moves from self-knowledge to knowledge of God).

p.179
Fesko implies that Dooyeweerd rejects the distinction between law & gospel, and between common & special grace. This just isn't so. Dooyeweerd criticizes certain specific views of those distinctions, but does not reject the distinctions themselves.

p.182
Fesko claims that Dooyeweerd's philosophy is "Kantian" because he supposedly deduces a system of thought from a central dogma. Whether such a thing is actually characteristic of Kantianism, Fesko never considers. And Fesko offers no argument from Dooyeweerd's writing that this was Dooyeweerd's approach, but simply makes the bogus charge. One only need read Dooyeweerd's writing to find out otherwise.

p.187
(without a single reference to Dooyeweerd's own writing) Fesko says that Dooyeweerd repeats Harnack's "Hellenization" thesis. In brief, Harnack rejects parts of the New Testament (eg, The Gospel of John) because he believed it employed pagan Greek metaphysical concepts. Further, Harnack's "gospel" is simply modern humanism in a thin veneer of religious language.

In diametric opposition to Harnack, Dooyeweerd subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity, and accordingly held to the full authority and infallibility of Scripture, and to an orthodox Calvinist understanding of the gospel --all about which Dooyeweerd is explicit.

Dooyeweerd rejects the idea that the New Testament writers imported pagan metaphysical ideas. As for theology, Dooyeweerd holds that the issue is not whether terms used in Greek philosophy (eg, logos, ousia) are also used in Christian theology (or in a creedal/confessional statement), but how those terms are defined or redefined. Where Dooyeweerd argues that specific antiChristian pagan ideas are to some extent accepted in any given theology, he makes explicit arguments, and these are nowhere cited or addressed by Fesko. 


See further, Rudi Hayward's article that documents Fesko's (spectacularly) hypocritical failure to actually read Dooyeweerd's own writing: https://reformationalintermezzo.blogspot.com/2019/11/dooyeweed-among-reformed-thomists.html

Also see these helpful comments (tho neither has read or understands Dooyeweerd's views):
1. https://www.proginosko.com/2021/07/reforming-apologetics-wrap-up/
2. https://yinkahdinay.wordpress.com/2019/07/09/book-review-reformed-apologetics-4/


5.20.2021

Five Different Versions of "Two Kingdoms"

1. One version of "two kingdoms" views it in terms of the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God.
This is also the sense in which Augustine spoke of the city of God and the city of earth (or sometimes others say the city of man). It is a distinction between salvation and damnation; good and evil; faith and love toward God in Christ vs. unbelief, apostasy, and idolatry.

2. Another version of two kingdoms (while not denying the first) is in terms of two kingdoms of God. One is "internal" and "invisible/spiritual", the other is "external" and "visible/material".
The first applies to God's "immediate" reign/rule over the consciences of believers; the reign of Christ in the hearts of believers. The other applies to "mediated" rule through delegated human authorities in church government and civil government.
This has been held by establishmentarians (theocrats or 'state church' advocates like Luther, Calvin, and most of the early Reformers), but isn't necessarily tied to that.

3. Yet another version of two kingdoms of God is in terms of the two external/"mediated" kingdoms in the institutional church and civil government.
In the church, Christ is the only head/king, and rules through His Word, ministered by church officers. In the civil government, earthly kings or magistrates rule by the (physical) sword.
This can also be held by those who also hold (1. and/or 2.), with or without establishmentarianism.

4. And yet another version of two kingdoms, sometimes held in combination or overlap with any of the above views, is a kingdom of "common grace" and a kingdom of "special grace".
There are several different versions of this view, but in general, common grace is understood to involve that dimension or those areas of life that are common to believers and unbelievers, while special grace is understood to involve salvation and that dimension or those areas of life that are related to believers.

5. And finally, another version of two kingdoms, are the salvific (or special grace) kingdom of God now presently inaugurated as the kingdom of Grace and the future not yet (or yet to be) consummated kingdom of Glory (in the new heavens and earth).
This language is used, for example, in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and is also compatible with the above views.

 

1.28.2021

Notes on Danie Strauss’ and Roy Clouser’s misunderstanding of Herman Dooyeweerd’s transcendental critique

 

In response to Herman Dooyeweerd's transcendental critique of theoretical thought, Danie Strauss and Roy Clouser have offered objections to and reformulations of it. It seems to me that their main objections are based on misunderstanding Dooyeweerd's view on several points. I don't cite where they explain their objections or document my counter-position with citations from Dooyeweerd here, but hope to do so eventually.

 

 

Strauss

1. he mistakes (what is really Dooyeweerd’s) distinction between the operations of antithetic abstraction and synthetic conceptualization for two separate ‘steps’.

 

While some infelicitous expressions of Dooyeweerd lend to that misunderstanding, these operations actually take place together in Dooyeweerd's view, as other expressions of Dooyeweerd make clearer. The former operation is performed ‘in’ the latter.

 

 

2. he mistakes Dooyeweerd’s formulation of the 2nd transcendental problem about synthesis to be concerned with how one might go about synthesizing(conceptualizing) after one has already abstracted.

 

Dooyeweerd clarifies that the 2nd problem rather concerns the basis upon which the synthesizing occurs, although again, certain unclear expressions by Dooyeweerd lend to the misunderstanding.

 

 

3. he mistakes Dooyeweerd’s view of 'Gegenstand' (object of theoretical analysis) to be exclusively non-logical.

 

While Dooyeweerd does refer to abstracted non-logical aspects as Gegenstand, he also makes clear that the logical (abstracted in contrast with the non-logical) may be a Gegenstand  – as any non-logical may be – as a field of theoretical/scientific investigation/analysis. Moreover, he also uses Gegenstand in reference to things that aren't aspects.

 

 

Clouser (agrees with Strauss’ misunderstandings and adds two others)

4. he mistakes Dooyeweerd’s view of the ‘isolating’ abstraction of one/each modal aspect from the rest to involve its abstractive isolation from the intermodal coherence of meaning, which is tantamount to absolutization.

 

Dooyeweerd clarifies that, rather, a modal aspect is abstractively isolated, not from the coherence of meaning with the rest, but only from its concrete temporal continuity.

The difference may be further clarified in terms of a supposed precisive and an actual nonprecisive abstraction.

 

 

5. he mistakes Dooyeweerd’s view of absolutization as thinking that successfully abstracts a modal aspect from the coherence.

 

Dooyeweerd clarifies that such (precisive) abstractive ‘seclusion’ or being ‘torn’ from the coherence is only supposed and not actual, because impossible.