We aim to educate and inspire listeners to intelligently embrace and passionately promote libertarianism as grounded in the Reformed Faith, and informed by a Reformed worldview.
In brief, the politics are what neocalvinist politics are meant to be (viz, thoroughly libertarian and grounded in the orthodox and confessional Reformed Faith).
For now, Lord willing, new episodes will be released every other Thursday. Episodes that include interviewed guests might be a bit longer, but usually episodes will be between 20-40 minutes (I think). I'd love your feedback (even if unfavorable). If you don't find it on your preferred podcatcher, let me know. We intend to add alternative social media availability too.
An addendum (to previous post): concerning establishment of 'religion'
In whatever way the English Dissenters/Nonconformists in the 1600s, the American Presbyterians in the 1700s, and Neocalvinists in the 1800s might have presented a Scriptural case against civil establishment of the church, I think Charles Hodge's argument is a sound one.
Some Reformed establishmentarians, however, try to argue for --not the civil establishment of a single church institution/denomination, but rather-- the civil establishment of 'religion,' whether that is conceived in broader Nicean orthodox Christian terms, or in relatively more narrow Protestant, or specific Reformed terms.
While I have highlighted the implied concern of Hodge's argument regarding faith and worship, I take one of the main concerns of establishment of 'religion' to be ethics.
If we characterize part of Hodge's argument as a sort of "exclusion" or "regulative principle" argument (viz, discipline in faith and worship are assigned the church, not to civil government, and therefore forbidden to civil government), and this is accepted arguendo, this nevertheless seems to leave open the question regarding ethics. The issue might be put this way: isn't discipline regarding ethics assigned to both church and civil government, although the means of discipline differ?
For example, theft is a matter of ethics, the discipline of which is assigned to the church, and yet discipline regarding theft is also assigned to civil government. So, why does this not extend to some, if not all, other ethical matters, even including those that overlap with matters of faith/heresy and worship/idolatry, such as blasphemy? In light of this, we can raise this fundamental question: Is there any Scriptural criterion by which we can discern which ethical matters are assigned to civil government for discipline (if the set of ethical matters is not simply identical to those assigned to the church)?
As I understand it, many advocates of civil establishment of 'religion' employ a criterion of "public-ness". So, for example, one may hold private blasphemous opinions and even privately worship in a blasphemous manner, but one should be civilly prohibited from "publicly" blaspheming, say, by publishing a book that says belief in God is stupid, dangerous, and evil.
The following is how Hodge's Scriptural argument addresses this issue.
First, as an aside, notice that Hodge includes an initial 4th point (which may be said to concern sphere sovereignty) that I do not include in my quotation because it seems to me its character as a Scriptural point is not made explicit by Hodge. It focuses on the point of different particular ends ordained by God for these distinct institutions, so that the fact of their having the same general end does not permit the inference that they are assigned to identical matters.
I think that point can be argued in an explicitly Scriptural way. Although, I don't suppose 'religion' establishmentarians necessarily disagree with that point. What I think there is disagreement about is the criterion by which we should discern the respective assignments (to church and to civil government, concerning ethics), and what those assignments are.
Second, I think Hodge's last point about the coercive means instituted for civil government is the key to recognizing the criterion by which we can discern which ethical matters are assigned to civil government. (This is so, even if Hodge does not himself draw this out explicitly, but restricts himself to how we discern what is not assigned to civil government.)
Briefly stated, we may reason from Scripture on the issue like this: given the explicit institution of civil government in Genesis 9 by way of affirming the principle of proportionality in retributive justice, we must infer that the authorization of responsive coercion repeated in Romans 13 is restricted to the wrongdoing of prior initiation of coercion (aggressions) against persons and property. In other words, proportionality entails not only to what degree/extent coercion is used, but whether it is used at all. And to use coercion against non-aggressive immorality is disproportionate and violates the sword power authorized by God for civil government.
That, then, is the Scriptural criterion by which we can discern which ethical matters are assigned to civil government, and it's the way Hodge's argument, although requiring that elaboration, applies to not only establishment of a single church institution, but also to establishment of 'religion' concerning civil enforcement of ethics, or a public morality.
First, he says the proper task or duties of the church and civil governance “must be determined from the Word of God.
And when reasoning from the Word of God [on these points], we are not authorized to argue from the Old Testament [old Mosaic covenant] economy [or administration] because that was avowedly temporary and has been abolished,
[instead, we] must derive our conclusions from the New Testament. We find it there taught:
(a) That Christ did institute a church separate from [civil governance], giving it separate laws and officers.
(b) That [Christ] laid down the qualifications of those officers and enjoined on the church, not on [civil governance], to judge [which men in the church meet those qualifications].
(c) That [Christ] prescribed the terms of admission to, and the grounds of exclusion from, the church, and left with the church its officers to administer these rules.”
Second, Hodge says “the New Testament, when speaking of the immediate design of [civil governance] and the official duties of the magistrate, never [suggests] that [magistrates have] those functions [related to religious belief or practice that establishmentarianism proposes].
This silence, together with the fact that those functions are assigned to the church and church
officers, is proof that it is not the will of God that they should be assumed by [civil governance].”
Third, Hodge says “the only means which [civil governance] can employ to accomplish many [duties proposed by establishmentarians, such as suppressing heresy and preventing false worship], [namely, by coercion],
are inconsistent with the example and commands of Christ [concerning faith and worship];
[and inconsistent] with the [liberty] of Christians, guaranteed in the Word of God (i.e., to serve God according to the dictates of one’s conscience);
[as well as] ineffectual to the true end of religion, which is voluntary obedience to the truth;
and [are] productive of incalculable evil.
…By enjoining [duties concerning faith and worship] upon the church, as an institution distinct
from [civil governance], [the New Testament] teaches positively that they do not belong to the magistrate, but to the church.”
I don't really have a large audience for my occasional posts, as far as I know. But blogger/blogspot doesn't really have good subscription options. Various widgets have been discontinued and/or are at best only semi-functional.
Here's my discussion with pastor Aldo Leon of Pinelands PCA (southeast Miami area) on the Gospel On Tap podcast, episode 95. We talk about the historical, confessional Reformed view of Romans 13 (the "prescriptive office" view), and its meaning for the proper role and strictly limited jurisdiction of civil governance, and The Right Of Political Resistance (even when the government is not requiring us to sin).
08:12 The Main Question: Are we obligated by God to submit to everything civil government requires, unless it is requiring sin? Why not?
09:48 Everything that happens is in God's providence. But the providential fact of someone in power is not God's "ordinance" in Romans 13.
13:50 Romans 13 says there is a God-ordained role/office of punishing actual civil wrongdoing; using coercion (the sword) against injustices (eg, murder and theft). This is the strict God-given limit on civil authority; civil government's actions outside that limited jurisdiction are illegitimate and sinful.
17:37 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 forbids taking civil disputes between Christians to unjust judges. If Romans 13 required submitting to the judgment of those who claimed civil power at the time, this would be a contradiction.
19:20 Reading Romans 13:1-7 from ESV
21:03 Clearly contrasting the wrong view and the right view: The common wrong view is that we must submit to everything that is not sin required by whoever is, providentially, in power. The right (Reformed) view is that we are only obligated to submit to what God prescriptively (morally) ordains: specifically, the lawful administration of civil justice. We are not prohibited from resisting tyranny or unjust laws, etc.
24:31 A "providential" view of the passage makes all civil power arbitrary; it amounts to nothing more than "might-makes-right".
26:40 When the false view is applied to and consistently worked-out in other spheres of God-ordained authority, such as home and church, then it would absurdly entail that abusive husbands and fathers are legitimate, and that false teachers could not be deposed from office. But God does not give us such unqualified "blank check" authority in any sphere.
31:32 Hosea 8:4 clearly teaches that existing civil governments can be contrary to God's will.
37:32 Hebrews 13:17 also speaks like Romans 13, in an indicative way (stating a fact), and it is understood as referring to a moral prescription for church office.
39:24 Question: How should we understand exhortations in 1 Peter about suffering? Or the appeal to Jeremiah 29 about promoting Babylon's peace, etc?
43:51 Correction! Gregory meant to say John Milton wrote Paradise Lost (not, 'Divine Comedy' by Dante). But see Milton's entry in the bibliography.
44:09 The New Testament exhortations concerning suffering are about how to suffer in Christ (when it's unavoidable). We are not commanded to suffer, or prohibited from seeking to avoid suffering.
50:42 Providence cannot be the basis for moral duty, because everything that occurs, even sin, is God's providence. If we shouldn't resist the government because of God's providence, wouldn't resistance to government be equally God's providence? So how can the duty to submit be coherently based on the fact of a government existing by God's providence? (It cannot).
55:17 Saying that any human authority, when they aren't requiring sin, has an otherwise unqualified or unlimited jurisdiction and scope of authority --such a view is idolatrous.
58:40 Question: Why have so many NAPARC (conservative, confessionally Reformed) churches neglected the historical, confessional Reformed "prescriptive office" view? It is not taught in most Reformed seminaries. Why? Possible contributing factors: pietistic "personal experience" focus, progressive/liberal accommodationist/syncretist identifying God's kingdom with the state, scholastic nature-grace dualism. See Gregory's related post: https://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2022/01/reformed-biblical-theological.html
1:18:33 Elements of feminizing men and feminizing worship also contribute
1:27:23 Gregory's closing thoughts:
a. Westminster Confession 20.4 affirms the prescriptive office view in speaking of "lawful" power. (And the other Reformed confessions have similar language.) b. see forthcoming info at Gregory's blog on authors from the bibliography about the Reformed View of The Right of Political Resistance. Preface here: https://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2022/08/the-right-of-political-resistance.html
1:31:18 Pastor Aldo's closing thoughts: God's Word tells us what the proper role and limited jurisdiction of civil governance is. The church's role is to declare and minister that Word in witness to the world. And believers individually may testify before those who claim power to the truth of His Word. Also, if a believer votes for a candidate to civil office, they should discern whether the candidate has a commitment to actual limited government, especially locally where local officers can serve to oppose higher levels of tyranny.
*Important caveat: while some Reformed authors did teach an erroneous 'providential' view, that view was rejected by the Reformed churches in their confessions.
There is a prominent need for not only Reformed church laity, but also officers to gain greater familiarity with the historical, confessional Reformed teaching on The Right of Political Resistance. Shamefully, this teaching is largely ignored and contradicted in numerous NAPARC churches.
This topic is important for several reasons:
1. It is an ethical matter of “non-indifference.” It is a matter positively moral or immoral, addressed in Scripture and in our doctrinal standards.
2. As such an ethical matter, it is not something about which the officers of the church must remain silent, but something about which they are obligated to teach and administer discipline.
3. It is a frequently encountered ethical matter. Christians must make choices nearly on a daily basis that may be informed by one’s beliefs on the matter.
4. It is a matter of the church’s faithful witness to the truth of God’s Word; and misrepresentations can be a major, unwarranted stumbling block before unbelievers to the call of the gospel, and to the consciences of believers.
Given the great need for this teaching, and its importance, I hope to make it more accessible by presenting vignettes of several Reformed authors and their statements from an annotated bibliography on the topic. If you find this edifying, please consider sharing and discussing the bibliography and forthcoming posts, especially with your elders and other believers.
In summary, the historical, confessional Reformed teaching on The Right of Political Resistance is:
Since, according to Scripture, God prescriptively ordains the administration of civil justice, and civil governance is strictly limited to this task, we are only obligated to submit to actual civil justice. The claim to civil power or exercise of power that violates civil justice is not ordained by God, and may be legitimately resisted. It is not only orders to sin that must be refused, but any civil requirement beyond the God-ordained sphere of civil justice may, when not otherwise sinful, be justly ignored.
The doctrinal standards of the Reformed churches affirm that unlawful power and unjust exercise of power is tyranny, and may be legitimately resisted because it is not ordained by God, and so no one can be obligated to submit to it. The Westminster Confession of Faith 20.4 specifies that those who “oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it... resist the ordinance of God.” The Second Helvetic Confession of Faith 30 similarly specifies obedience only to “just and fair commands.” The Belgic Confession of Faith 36 specifies obedience only to “things that are not in conflict with God’s Word,” and denounces all, even civil powers, who would “subvert justice.” [See also the Congregationalists' 1658 Savoy Declaration 24.4, and the Baptists' 1689 London Confession 24.3 similar use of the term lawful to WCF 23.4 in this comparison chart.]
Some prospective vignettes: 1. John Chrysostom (c.347-407) : one of the most important Nicene era pastors (and a martyr) in Antioch and Constantinople
2. Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575) : Reformed pastor in Zurich and author of the Helvetic Confessions
3. Theodore Beza (1519-1605) : Reformed pastor in Geneva and founder of the university law school
4. Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583) : Reformed theologian in Heidelberg and author of the Heidelberg Catechism
5. Johannes Althusius (1563-1638) : Reformed legal scholar in Emden and author of Politica
Here are various and sundry podcast aggregator (or podcatcher) links for Honest To Pod - Gregory Baus talks about stuff. (For now, no apple/itunes).
It's only "occasional," whenever I happen to record something. Topics are my usual: Reformed theology, Reformational philosophy, and Reformed/neocalvinist libertarian-anarchist politics (and economics).
Kerry Baldwin, of Dare To Think / Mere Liberty podcast, and I begin to discuss the statement on Reformed Anarchism. The first section deals with What Is Culture?, and we chat about the first subsection in two episodes.
Also see a series of 18 videos in which Pastor Nate Xanders and I give an introductory overview of some issues involved in understanding some basic points of Reformed anarchism.
Preface: To give credit where it’s due, as I recall, the criticism that Irons raises was similarly raised to me by Dr. William D. Dennison (Pastor of Emmanuel OPC in Kent, WA; Professor Emeritus of Interdisciplinary Studies at Covenant College) sometime around 1994-1996 during one of his private Geerhardus Vos seminars (from which I benefited immensely, personally and academically). Although not very articulately, I attempted to raise the issue with Dr. Albert M. Wolters around 2002. I hope the main point of criticism is clearer in this article.
By Reformed “Biblical
theology” is meant not only Reformed theology that is according to the teaching
of the Bible, but particularly a sub-discipline of exegetical theology that
studies Scripture in terms of the historical, ‘organic’ progress of God’s
special revelation. The understanding of the teaching of Scripture that results
from such study has foundational significance for Christian cultural activity,
that is, for the question of how Christians can do cultural activity in a
distinctly Christian way.
One of the foundational
teachings highlighted by a Reformed Biblical theology is what may be called
pre-redemptive (or creational) eschatology. This has significance for Christian
cultural activity because the cultural mandate was initially given by God
before the fall in the context of this eschatology. After the fall, when
redemption is established and eschatology is set in that redemptive context,
the cultural task is also set within that new context. Our understanding of
cultural activity must take proper account of the important changes God introduced
in the context of the fall and redemption.
Dr. Charles Lee Irons offers superb introductory material on various topics related to Reformed Biblical
theology in his The Upper Registervideos/podcast.
Before presenting a few notes of clarification on his piece about ethics and a
view of cultural activity, I summarize what he explained
about Reformed Biblical-theological teaching on Adam’s Probation and the Priority of Eschatology. I recommend
listening to his full piece here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_NJwB_f1P4 .
In summary, our “first
parents” were created in God’s image with a prospect of advancement to a
consummated, glorified existence. This may be seen by the two special trees in
Eden (Gen 2:9): the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, symbolizing Adam’s
probationary testing in the Covenant of Works (Gen 2:15-17), and the Tree of
[Eternal] Life, symbolizing confirmation of successfully passing the test, and
the reward of advancement (Gen 3:22-24).
In Eden, God gave humanity a
mandate to be fruitful, to multiply, fill, and subdue the earth, to have
dominion over it, to work and guard it (Gen 1:26-28; 2:15). This involved both
kingly and priestly elements together. In a unique theocratic arrangement,
humans were to protect, extend, and populate the holy sanctuary throughout the
world, and so obtain the eschatological fulfillment of God's kingdom. This work
was to occur in a condition of confirmed righteousness, having successfully
passed the probation. And as a sign of the prospective completion of their
labor, God established the Sabbath, symbolizing the consummate and glorified
eternal rest (Gen 2:1-3; Heb 4:1-10).
In Adam’s having failed the
test and breaking the Covenant of Works, our first parents and their natural
posterity became liable to eternal death/damnation. However, God had mercy and in
Gen 3:15 made the first promise of the gospel, establishing the Covenant of
Grace. Christ would defeat Satan as Adam failed to do. The eschatological
judgement would be postponed, and there would be a temporal common curse,
frustrating cultural labors in pain and temporal death.
Now, Christ successfully
passed the test for His people, took their eschatological curse, obtained the
eschatological advancement, fulfills the cultural mandate (fruitfully, bringing
many sons to glory, Heb 2; 1Cor 15:20-28), and will bring the consummate
kingdom of God. After Gen 3:15, everything in Scripture unfolds that first
gospel promise, and this gospel must be understood in terms of Christ
fulfilling what Adam did not, and achieving that advancement to consummate
glory for those redeemed in Him.
With that in view, the following is a summary
of what Irons explained about Reformed Biblical-theological teaching on Ethics (and Christian cultural
activity). I recommend listening to his full piece here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkJMD3U7vQ
In summary, the misuse of
Scripture in ethics can be either libertine, permitting immorality (such as
theologically liberal attempts to erroneously define sexual immorality as
non-sinful), or legalistic, imposing extra-Scriptural duties (such as
unorthodox ‘neocalvinist’ attempts to erroneously define the cultural mandate as
imperative in the same way it was
pre-fall). Irons does not criticize neocalvinism as developed by Kuyper and
Dooyeweerd, but rather he addresses a specific, partial distortion of
neocalvinism, for example as articulated by Dr. Albert M. Wolters in certain
statements from his book Creation Regained (CR).
While even a distorted
neocalvinism recognizes the historical development of Scripture in terms of
creation, fall, redemption, and consummation, it nevertheless does not treat
the cultural mandate properly in that context. A proper Reformed
Biblical-theological view can help correct the distortions. The key issue is this: after the fall
into sin, are believers now able in Christ to eschatologically fulfill the
cultural mandate as it was given before the fall in order to bring the
consummation of God’s kingdom? Wolters says we are (eg, “the kingdom of God
will not come in its fullness without the ‘redemption’ [by Christians’
activity] of this area of human [life]” [CR, p.95, 2nd ed. p.114]), but such a claim is a Biblical-theological error.
The distorted view
incorrectly argues that Christians may re-direct their cultural activity to its original pre-fall purpose since
the fall did not affect the ‘Structure’ (law order) given in creation, but only
negatively affected the ‘Direction’ of (viz, mis-directed) our use of creation,
for example in cultural activity, and that therefore Christians have a duty to
redeem every area of life, thereby
contributing to the consummation.
It is, however, a
Biblical-theological error to suppose that the fall has not altered the meaning
of the cultural mandate in relation to the consummation, and to suppose that
Christians have a duty to fulfill the
cultural mandate in order to bring-in the
consummate kingdom of God, eschatologically.
Rather, a proper Reformed
Biblical-theological view recognizes that in response to the fall and in
establishing redemption, God separated the objectively holy and priestly ‘cult’
tasks and the (possibly subjectively holy) common and kingly ‘cultural’ tasks. Prior
to the fall, these tasks were entirely integrated as one. In the Edenic
theocracy, kingly tasks of cultural dominion would extend the objectively holy
realm throughout the earth and had a priestly-cultic goal of resulting in the
consummate cosmic temple.
However, after the fall, God
introduces a particular differentiation into human societal life. God
establishes a structural dualism or separation between a.) the objectively holy
kingdom of God in a special/redemptive grace covenant community of the
institutional church, and b.) the common grace order, in which reality, though
under a temporal common curse, is preserved, and the eschatological judgement
is postponed, as a context for the objectively holy kingdom to operate
alongside those outside the institutional church, and as a context in which
both believers and unbelievers participate in cultural activity.
In the non-theocratic
context, after the fall, the cultural mandate properly has only this refracted
or differentiated form, such that cultural activity is no longer a means of
bringing-in the consummate kingdom of God. The fact of the temporal curse in
the pains of birth and ground -labors and the ultimate frustration of human
temporal death testifies to this significant change. The redemptive kingdom of
God is accomplished and obtained by Christ’s work as the second/last Adam, in
His calling the elect, and it is finally consummated by Him, not through
believers’ cultural activities.
Christians have a duty to subjectively sanctify their cultural
activity in their doing it to the glory of God, witnessing to their heavenly
hope obtained by Christ. But this does not objectively
transform common cultural activity into the holy kingdom, nor contribute to the
eschatological consummation of that objectively holy kingdom.
With the foregoing in mind,
what follows are four points of clarification about how this foundational Reformed
Biblical-theological understanding of the priority of eschatology and the
changes concerning cultural activity after the fall relate to a proper view of
how Christians can do cultural activity in a distinctly Christian way.
First,
while after the fall God separated 'cult' and 'culture’, establishing the
Covenant of Grace and the institutional church, as well as a common grace
order, this did not involve creating any kind of "religious
neutrality" in life or in any area of life. Reformed Biblical-theologian
Meredith G. Kline affirms with orthodox neocalvinism that after the fall, every
person and everyone's life in every area, including one's cultural life,
whether believer or unbeliever, remains religious. After the fall, believers
should recognize that all their cultural activities "are to be carried out
under God’s mandate as service to Him for His glory and thus are thoroughly
religious" (Kline, Kingdom Prologue[KP],
p.67).
As there has been a
distortion of neocalvinism, there has also been a distortion of Kline's views
in a sort of scholasticism. This distortion falsely interprets God's post-fall
separation of 'cult' and 'culture' in terms of a supposed religious realm of
grace and a supposed non-religious realm of nature, which then has consequences
for how, for example, the relationship between faith and reason is
(erroneously) conceived and a Christian’s cultural activity is (erroneously)
understood.
Clouser speaks of scholasticism as a view holding that "the proper understanding of [most of] culture does not differ depending on what one’s religion is." It [scholasticism] is "the general relation of divinity [religious] beliefs to theories as corresponding to two very different kinds of information: beliefs which are the deliverances of reason, and beliefs which are the deliverances of [special] revelation accepted by faith, where faith is understood to be a distinct mental faculty from reason.
Scholasticism "emphasizes the need to harmonize [the authoritative] deliverances [of faith and reason] so as to avoid contradiction between them." It appeals "to the biblical teaching that there are two dimensions of creation, which the Bible calls 'heaven' and 'earth'. The proposal [is] that each of these dimensions be taken as known in a different way, one by reason and the other by faith. The dimension of earth [nature] ...was held to be the dimension of reality known by perception and reason. Such knowledge was held to be the same for all people. Concerning nature, reason ...is [religiously] neutral, and the final authority for all ['natural'] truth.
"The heavenly dimension of reality [supernature] ...was [mostly] taken to be known only by [special] revelation from God which must be accepted on faith. These revealed truths conveyed knowledge not provable by reason, such as information about God, the nature of the human soul, angels, and life after death. These truths are therefore not available to all people but only those to whom God’s grace has given the gift of faith. For without faith to accept revelation, reason is relatively helpless to discover truth about the supernatural realm [other than the fact of the existence of God and of human souls]. In this way, each [reason and faith, respectively] is the supreme authority in its own realm.
Nevertheless, the scholastic view is that ..."there is a two-way interaction between faith and reason. [They] each have duties toward one another; each has its own proper domain, but each also affects the other. For example, reason not only discovers truth about nature and proves the existence of a supernatural realm, but also systematizes revealed doctrines and checks all rational theories for their compatibility with those doctrines. This is the task of theology. In case a theory of philosophy or science is found to be irreconcilably in contradiction with revealed truth, that theory is then to be discarded as false [but can sometimes be adequately modified, in this view, by adding God to it].
The duty of faith toward reason is thus to supply an external check on whether reason has fallen into error, and it is seen as an advantage for reason to have such infallible truths by which to test its hypotheses. In the final analysis, therefore, the authority of revelation taken on faith is superior to that of reason alone. ...The guidance that faith offers to reason is a largely negative and external check on what reason may accept. It is not seen as an internally regulating influence."
So, if
one held to this scholastic view of the relation of faith and reason, and one associated
culture and common grace with the "realm of nature" understood
primarily by reason, then it could be supposed that the only significant
Christian distinction in cultural activity might be the (partial) contribution
of Christian morals/morality. It could be supposed that while it would be
advantageous to have special revelation, such an addition wouldn't involve
anything distinctively Christian (or otherwise necessarily religious) about
cultural activity per se.
Furthermore,
if one held to this scholastic view of the relation of faith and reason, and
restricted the kingdom of God exclusively to the "supernatural" and
its institutional expression in the institutional church, then it could be
supposed that expressions of the subjective recognition of the reign of God in
a believer's cultural activity were not expressions of the kingdom of God (or,
as above, simply not a matter of cultural activity per se).
This
response from Clouser to a Thomist's views might shed further light. In any case, Kline’s
views are distorted if interpreted through such scholastic assumptions.
Second, we
should understand, as Kline says: “The Scriptures compel us to distinguish
between the kingdom of God as realm and reign and to recognize that though everything
is embraced under the reign of God, not everything can be identified as part of
the kingdom of God viewed as a holy realm” (KP, p.170). ...“The cultural
activity of God’s people is common grace activity ...[yet] it is an expression
of the reign of God in their lives, [although] it is not a building of the
kingdom of God as institution or realm” (KP, p.201). ...“The kingdom was already
present in the reign of God through his re-creating Spirit within [the
regenerate]” (KP, p.382).
This is in agreement with
Reformed Biblical-theologian Geerhardus Vos, who in his book The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church [TKGC], says: "To [Jesus] the kingdom exists
there, where not merely God is supreme, for that is true at all times and under
all circumstances, but where God supernaturally carries through his supremacy
against all opposing powers and brings man to the willing recognition of the
same [through regeneration] (TKGC, p.85-86). ...Undoubtedly the kingship
[reign] of God, as his recognized and applied supremacy, is intended to pervade
and control the whole of human life in all its forms of existence. ...Whenever
one of these spheres [of activity] comes under the controlling influence of the
principle of the divine supremacy and glory, and this outwardly reveals itself,
there we can truly say that the kingdom of God has become manifest" (TKGC,
p.162-163). [free online version here.]
So while a Christian's
cultural activity is not, and does not become, the objective holy realm of
God's kingdom, it can be, nevertheless, a true manifestation of God's kingdom
as believers’ subjective recognition of God's reign in their cultural
activities, wrought in them by Christ's redemption applied in their
regeneration.
Third, we
should be clear about the "structure" to which Kline’s term
"structural dualism" refers. We must distinguish "Structure"
in the sense of "Structure for",
that is, the laws and norms God has established for reality and human life in
creation (and preserved in God's providence and common grace), from
"structure" in the sense of "structures of" human society, such as the objectively holy institutional
church, and the various common kinds of societal communities (or spheres of
cultural activity).
That is, when someone refers
to an "institution" such as the institutional church, or another
distinct kind of societal community (such as the family, or civil governance),
as "structures", this doesn't refer to Structure (namely, God's
abiding laws and norms) in the Structure and Direction distinction.Rather, to call a societal community, such as
the institutional church a "structure" is to say an institution OF
society, that is, a societal institution/community; a "structure" OF
society, not a law or a norm, but
something that is subject to God-given laws and norms.
It is true that "the
fall does not affect the 'Structure' given in creation." After the fall,
physical laws, such gravity, are not changed; nor does God change His moral law
or other norms. However, God did
change the forms that human societal life would take in the fallen world. Apart
from a typologically theocratic, old (Mosaic) covenant Israel, the objectively
holy special grace community of the institutional church would be distinct from
common cultural activity; even while a believer's redemption would entail their
subjective sanctification of such cultural activity.
Fourth, in
addition to conforming to the standards of Christian morality in our cultural
activities, so that we follow God's moral commands from a regenerate heart of faith,
in the ways He requires in His Word (eg, in loving service and witness to our
neighbor), and doing all things to the ultimate purpose of God’s glory, how else might Christians subjectively
sanctify their cultural activities? How else in their cultural activities
and each area of life might believers consciously recognize God's reign? One
way, is to grow in our understanding of the various areas of life as thoroughly
religious and in relation to the preeminence of Christ. For more on that see
here: https://sites.google.com/site/christianviewofeverything/
Again, the issue is: after the fall, are believers
now able in Christ to eschatologically fulfill the cultural mandate as it was given before the fall in
order to bring the consummation of God's kingdom?
The answer to that question from an orthodox, proper
neocalvinist perspective is: absolutely NOT.The further question is then: after the
fall, what does the subjective sanctification of a believer's cultural
activity actually mean?
An orthodox neocalvinist answer to that further question
elaborates Kline's stated view.
i.
Kline's view is that, by the application of Christ's accomplishment of
redemption in regeneration, Christians are able to (subjectively) rightly
recognize the reign of God in all areas of life, and in all those areas perform
those activities to the ultimate end of God's glory.
ii. The
orthodox neocalvinist view elaborates on what that involves more particularly,
saying that such subjective recognition and ultimate end in a believer's
cultural activity (which constitutes subjective sanctification) includes
(however imperfect in this life) Christian good works (increasingly according
to the moral normativity of God's abiding moral will), and increasing conformity to whatever other abiding norms God
has established for human action generally, and for cultural activity.
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.
Compulsory vaccination violates God-given liberty of conscience.
Only each person, and not civil government, has a God-given right as steward over one’s own body.
Civil government has no God-given competence or jurisdiction to rule on medical/health issues.
Native or endemic illnesses are never rightly treated by means of any coercion.
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.
Posts
