tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.comments2021-11-10T14:14:14.035-05:00HONEST TO BLOGBaushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-12990826732872985862021-07-03T01:49:30.618-04:002021-07-03T01:49:30.618-04:00Thanks, Steve. I added a few more comments I foun...Thanks, Steve. I added a few more comments I found.<br />Really, Rudi did the more laborious task, demonstrating the profound hypocrisy of Fesko's criticism regarding primary sources.<br />Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-7818588699628211172021-07-01T02:08:57.691-04:002021-07-01T02:08:57.691-04:00Thanks for this insightful analysis Gregory.
Steve...Thanks for this insightful analysis Gregory.<br />Stevestevebishophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01485378930192829175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-57975124578568600142021-02-03T21:39:55.466-05:002021-02-03T21:39:55.466-05:00A friend asks "Is it your intention to entire...A friend asks "<i>Is it your intention to entirely dismiss the criticisms of Strauss and Clouser?</i>"<br /><br /><b>My reply</b>:<br />I hope the fact of my engaging their criticisms itself demonstrates that I have no such intention.<br /><br />Plus, I think they both contribute some important positive points. For example, it seems to me that following his objection to (what he takes to be) Dooyeweerd's view of antithetic abstraction and synthetic conceptualization as two <i>separate</i> steps, Strauss has labored to clarify that they must in fact take place together. So, while it seems to me he is mistaken about Dooyeweerd's view on that point, Strauss' response is quite correct and helpful.<br /><br />For another example, it similarly seems to me that while Clouser is mistaken about his main objection/s to Dooyeweerd's view, nevertheless Clouser's "simplification" of formulating a transcendental critique is good and helpful. He leaves out a level of possible detail and complexity that I think can be presented, but I think his formulation is nonetheless successful.<br />It seems to me Clouser labors to clarify, for instance, that modal aspects cannot be abstractively isolated from their coherence of meaning with each other. However, it also seems to me that Dooyeweerd agrees on that point. Clouser even admits that Dooyeweerd seems to agree, and so his objection is that Dooyeweerd is inconsistent with himself. I think this inconsistency appears to Clouser based on a misunderstanding.<br /><br />So, overall, rather than any kind of dismissal of Strauss' and Clouser's critiques, my intention is to appreciatively and seriously engage their criticisms and to address what seems to me to be their main objections on specific points (namely, those 5 points I mention).<br /><br /><br />Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-62821982249965530232020-06-12T16:27:46.755-04:002020-06-12T16:27:46.755-04:00Good stuff here. MahaloGood stuff here. MahaloStopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09041597980073637527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-56702990795502692022017-10-23T20:43:20.939-04:002017-10-23T20:43:20.939-04:00Brian Mattson explains a key flaw with neotwokingd...Brian Mattson explains a key flaw with neotwokingdom thinking in terms of its assumptions about cultural homogeneity:<br />http://static.squarespace.com/static/5005c8fe84ae929b3721501f/t/5057868fe4b093884ee9a52f/1347913359774/<br /><br />Good stuff.<br />Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-77647747411013121562015-04-05T17:40:31.386-04:002015-04-05T17:40:31.386-04:00Dear "FR", styles and genre as employed ...Dear "FR", styles and genre as employed in any concrete piece of music or song have both structural and directional dimensions.<br /><br />By <b>structure</b>, we refer to God’s creational laws and norms that are in force for [in this case,] music and musical activity (generally, and any give instance of it).<br /><br />Some of these laws are <b>directly compelling</b> (such as physical, organic, and sensory laws) and <i>cannot</i> be "disobeyed." Other laws (often called norms), while always in force, are <b>appealing</b>. That is to say, they can be violated.<br /><br />By <b>direction</b>, we refer to negative deviation from and positive conformity to these norms.<br /><br />Moral norms are only one kind of normitivity. There are other kinds of norms, such as logical, historical, lingual, social, economic, aesthetic, juridical, and fiducial.<br /><br />Music is typically qualified by the aesthetic modality, but a thorough 'directional' analysis will take into consideration the complex relations between all these in any concrete instance of music.<br /><br />Certainly, no "style" as such may simply be written off as "immoral." Though, of course, songs can indeed be immoral.<br /><br />Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-73767606816382103022014-12-22T11:29:30.497-05:002014-12-22T11:29:30.497-05:00Hi Baus,
Having seen your comment on Scott Aniol&#...Hi Baus,<br />Having seen your comment on Scott Aniol's blog, I'd like to ask you to clarify what, to you, is structural and what is directional in Wolters' sense, at the example of music.<br /><br /># I would think that sound/timbre etc. is structural. This is all due to, I guess, type laws that enable and determine such things physically.<br /># What about music, in a general sense? That also seems to be structural, I'd think based on the physical and qualified by the aesthetic.<br /># But what about a musical style? Is that structural or directional?<br /># Certainly, a song must be directional, given it is linked to some intent by its author/interpreter?<br /><br />If a style were directional then it is fixed and cannot be redeemed just by using it with Christian intent (to God's glory) unless it already has such direction. Changing direction would necessarily mean, then, to change the style into something else (another style).<br /><br />In my understanding, this is where the rubber hits the road in Aniol's argumentation (as I understand it). He claims that all music we make is communication, hence, activity, and hence, morally relevant (i.e. it has direction).<br /><br />Would you agree with that or if not, why do you think a style is a structure and not directional? You could think of trash metal or hip-hop as examples of styles.Dagoberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02638259101361120241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-73264745706329454172012-12-13T12:14:45.864-05:002012-12-13T12:14:45.864-05:00Martin, to characterize "the" Puritan vi...Martin, to characterize "the" Puritan view as simply carrying-over the OT sabbath "wholesale" is a bit of a strawman, not taking into consideration the more nuanced view even represented in the Westminster Standards. In any case, that Calvin "might" have bowled on the Lord's Day, or that it is "entirely plausible" that he might have is <i>entirely conjecture</i> and contrary to all evidence.<br /><br />Nevertheless, your distinction between "playing a game" and "spending the day playing games" is useful. And I agree that the question of children's activities does need to be addressed in practical terms.<br /><br />Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-37370788295802022622012-12-12T00:37:12.634-05:002012-12-12T00:37:12.634-05:00I believe those who hold the Puritan view of the L...I believe those who hold the Puritan view of the Lord's Day are reading Calvin's words through their "Westminster" lenses-- that is, anachronistically. Calvin does not say-- as the Puritans would have said, that the Lord's day is desecrated by a single act of recreation on Sunday. Rather, what he says-- consistent with his teaching in the Institutes-- is that God is dishonored if we "spend" the Lord's Day in frivolous activity. To spend the Lord's Day in that way would be a misuse of the Day, since God has given us the Lord's Day to be a means of spiritual edification. A father who throws a ball to his child in the backyard for a half hour in the afternoon, however, cannot be accused of "spending" the Lord's day "in playing and gaming." (That would be like saying that a man who walks to the mailbox to person who walks once around the block on the Lord's Day has "spent" the day walking. It is true that Calvin believed the day was properly used when we dedicate it wholly unto the Lord, but it is unclear, in my mind, that he would have objected to a single act of recreation on the Lord's Day. The strictness of the Puritan position is based on their view that the Sabbath has passed into the new dispensation in a "wholesale" manner, the only change being the day of its observance. Calvin rejected that view, as his commentary on the fourth commandment in the Institutes makes clear. I am inclined to think that he would not have gone as far as the Puritans in condemning a single act of recreation on the Lord's Day; and therefore, I find it entirely plausible that he might have bowled on the Lord's Day for the purpose of refreshing his body after spending several hours reading and meditating on God's word. What is clear from his writings as a whole is that he did not see the Sabbath carrying over in a "wholesale" manner into the new dispensation. He regarded the Sabbath as a partly ceremonial and partly moral law. It is the "moral aspect" of the Sabbath only that remains applicable under the New Covenant, not the 'ceremonial part' that God gave to the Jews as an adumbration of spiritual rest in Christ.Martin Rizleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14052295176482468316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-18398557522743358562012-10-18T02:11:36.486-04:002012-10-18T02:11:36.486-04:00continued...
Unregenerate understanding of natura...continued...<br /><br />Unregenerate understanding of natural revelation is always partially falsified in idolatry, and I have pointed to Clouser’s work as elaborating on that. I wrote in the comments to my post: “…the standard of comparison isn’t ‘this individual believer’ to ‘that individual unbeliever’, but rather, in terms of ‘belief’ to ‘unbelief’ (or rather, to false belief).<br />Clouser particularly demonstrates this through the deifying reductionisms of false belief. One example of Christian redirected understanding relates to conceptions of society and the false alternatives of ‘individualism’ and ‘collectivism’.” These make real concrete difference in everyday life.<br /><br />I get the impression that VanDrunen wouldn’t see or express this type of difference as a matter of the “implications of ones faith”. Wouldn’t he rather say that since societal norms are universal/creational that Christian faith offers no principle advantage in having a more normative understanding or action?<br /><br />On the other hand, if VanDrunen, after all, holds that cultural activity is always “direction’ed,” and that Christians’ redemption makes possible a re-directed (transformational) and distinct understanding of general revelation and normative use of culture that can produce concrete differences, then we are on the same page. And I will encourage him to *join us* in exploring and explicating how, after all, the structurally common tasks of learning and working, etc can be understood and done in a uniquely Christian way –a way that makes a concrete difference in our cultural activity beyond superficial (surface) similarities.<br /><br />Certainly, there are many “common grace insights” (partially falsified by idolatry) in the various unbelieving conceptions of natural law that can be redeemed/transformed and fruitfully resituated in a distinctly Christian framework. There’s plenty of work to be done in holy service to Christ for God’s glory, and it will not be in vain.<br />Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-13157870929187989062012-10-18T02:10:38.506-04:002012-10-18T02:10:38.506-04:00Below, I re-post a (lengthy) comment I made here: ...Below, I re-post a (lengthy) comment I made here: http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/two-kingdom-myths/<br /><br />Matt asked " <i>could you please explain how when you say that “</i>faithful Christian activity that is faithful to the wisdom God reveals in creation *is* to be redemptive<i>”, what you are saying is different from what VanDrunen says when he calls Christian cultural activity subjectively redemptive?<br />Also, could you please point me to some points in Calvin’s writings where he talks in this way?</i> "<br /><br />I couldn’t check out pages 166-172 of VanDrunen's <i>Living In God's Two Kingdoms</i> as Matt recommended, unfortunately. I don’t have a copy here with me in China, so perhaps VanDrunen elaborates on objective and subjective in those pages in a way I would agree with, or in such a way that I could draw the contrast between our views more precisely.<br /><br />However, on page 31 of LGTK, VanDrunen says “Learning, working, and voting are not uniquely Christian tasks, but common tasks. Christians should always be distinguished from unbelievers subjectively: they do all things by faith in Christ for his glory. But as an objective matter, the standards of morality and excellence in the common kingdom are ordinarily the same for believers and unbelievers.”<br /><br />I agree with this after a fashion, and it points to the structure/direction distinction. The church is structurally/objectively holy and ecclesial activity can be done directionally/subjectively in a holy or profane way. Culture is structurally/objectively common and cultural activity can be done directionally/subjectively in a holy or profane way.<br /><br />The issue is what do we mean when we say that cultural activity can be done in a holy way. Neocalvinists mean that this re-direction in faith to God’s glory is possible by redemption in Christ. Thus, it is a way that the unregenerate don’t have access to. The structural norms are the same, but the mis-direction of sin distorts the unregenerate’s ability to recognize them for what they are.<br />Therefore it is quite helpful to say that Christians can do common cultural activity in a redemptive or transformational way. By Christ’s redemption, through the Spirit, in faith, to God’s glory, Christians can turn from profane antinormativity in cultural action to holy normativity in cultural action. It’s a transformation that comes through redemption.<br /><br />This isn’t mere preservation of the structure (creation and its norms) in terms of the Noahic covenant, although God certainly does that.<br />Normative action in this sense (ie, in terms of its direction) is not made possible by the norms being universal creational (structure), because activity (or ‘use’ of things, as Calvin says) is always “direction’ed” (in fall/rebellion or redemption/obedience). It is not automatic or guaranteed in every action for Christians, but redemption makes such obedience possible.<br /><br />And (in the linked post) I have shown how Calvin speaks that way in his comments on 1 Timothy 4. I wrote: “Calvin notes that the normative use of food must be judged not only from the person who eats it, but also, he says, “partly from its substance.” This means that a Christian’s discernment of the sanctified use of culture involves discerning from creation or natural revelation, the norms that God ordained for cultural activity.” So, Christian cultural activity is distinct not because the person doing it does it in faith with no concrete differences in the activity, but because, as it is discerned by a Spirit-wrought illumination and insight into God’s natural revelation, that faith can result in re-directed normativity in cultural action.<br /><br />Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-19749942737433532232012-10-17T02:30:20.811-04:002012-10-17T02:30:20.811-04:00Brian, I understand. I was illustrating the practi...Brian, I understand. I was illustrating the practical difference Christian belief makes. Christianity transformed/redeemed medicine. These days, in most of the West, even non-Christians surface-imitate Christian medicine, even while they continue to do it according to a contrary direction.<br /><br />Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-3214498330236015132012-10-16T00:31:59.882-04:002012-10-16T00:31:59.882-04:00Baus,
I will address the substance of what you sa...Baus,<br /><br />I will address the substance of what you said within a few days, but I did not want you leave you hanging concerning Pagan medicine, witchcraft, etc. I did not mean to communicate that I take my father to visit shamans or Buddhist temples, only that some of his (licensed!) medical professionals (e.g. medical doctor, chiropractor, etc.), happen to have those personal beliefs. They could just as easily be Christians. Sorry for the confusion!bdheckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01292968126370121673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-9888060093393274292012-10-15T03:10:50.330-04:002012-10-15T03:10:50.330-04:00Brian, you inquired about how I "equate “uniq...Brian, you inquired about how I "equate “unique Christian” manner of doing things with a “redemptive” manner of doing things."<br /><br />I've explained that at length.<br /><br />As part of that explanation I've shown that in the neocalvinist conception of redeeming/transforming culture, we don't claim to turn cultural activity into something else than it is 'onticly' (structurally/objectively). But rather, we are making a 'directional' claim about antinormative use to normative use (directionally/subjectively).<br /><br />You say that you fail to see the point of talking about doing something in a distinctly Christian way if it isn't about the structural. Well, the point is that redemption is about the directional! The neo2k critics of neocalvinism have based their objections on a significant misunderstanding of what we advocate, and on a significant misconstrual of the actual distinctions involved.<br /><br />Moreover, Horton and VanDrunen oppose the possibility of this way of doing things. They make the same sort of argument that you have: "It makes no difference if my doctor isn't a Christian."<br /><br />But that is a very suface-level understanding of medicine and health. It's like Clouser's analogy about "<a href="http://sites.google.com/site/christianviewofeverything/" rel="nofollow">passing the salt</a>." To illustrate the 'practical/visible' differences, you ought to consider what Buddhist and Pagan medicine are apart from the influence of Christianity. Superstition, witchcraft, and idolatry are directional matters and they effect cultural activity in very concrete ways. Christianity is directional and has effected medicine (for one example) in very concrete ways too.<br /><br />Neocalvinist writing & action has been about working-out the meaning of what glorifying God in cultural cultural looks like (both at the level of 'presuppositions' and concrete action). Consider what Clouser says about the difference it makes in our understanding and explaining natural revelation.<br /><br /><br />Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-90627430861563534282012-10-13T02:43:19.682-04:002012-10-13T02:43:19.682-04:00Baus,
Thanks for sharing this piece. I think I un...Baus,<br /><br />Thanks for sharing this piece. I think I understand what you are saying, and unless I am misunderstanding you, I don't think I take issue with your structure/direction distinction. I am also sorry though because I fail to see how what you have written here is addressing my response to you earlier on Tunninga's blog. If what is meant by a "unique Christian" manner is calling things holy by lifting them up by faith in thanksgiving and prayer, I don't think I disagree with that. I would even go so far as to say that (in the overused analogy I gave earlier) that the plumber who is a Christian does (or at least should) do his work in a way pleasing unto the Lord, which is distinctly Christian. However, that being said, that hardly gives an element to criticize substantially what Horton, et al. have said. They may not be as precise in their language as you like, but in what they are actually referring to, you do not really seem to take issue. I take my father to different doctors and physical therapists. One of them is a Buddist, the other is quite New Age, another is an outright atheist, and another is a Lutheran. I do not feel for a moment that my father is receiving unholy treatment because many of those treating him are not Christians, even though they may have an unholy direction. I don't think you disagree with this. My point is simply that I fail to see the weight in stressing a "distinctly Christian approach" to cultural activities if "approach" is actually more of a direction or label than structure. You may say that a redeemed person acts redeemed. That may be true. But I fail to see how that is distinctly different from a non-redeemed person in their cultural engagements, on any practical visible level at least.<br /><br />Brianbdheckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01292968126370121673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-78512755461802798332012-06-03T02:45:40.134-04:002012-06-03T02:45:40.134-04:00Jed, your use of word 'inert' is still unc...Jed, your use of word 'inert' is still unclear. I take the word in its normal sense to mean "non-active". Clearly, it makes little sense to say activities are non-active.<br /><br />You seem to be relating the word to the structural goodness of creation, and to directional <i>un-committedness</i>. Yes, created things as such are structurally good and not yet "directioned" when they aren't used. But, I'm talking about activity; <b>using</b> things. Activity or action is always in some direction or other. You seem to recognize this, so I'm not sure what point your trying to make.<br /><br />The question at hand is whether Christians can do cultural activity in a way that is effected by their redemption. You seem to deny this.<br /><br />Concerning your example (plumbing), I asked what you thought about Clouser's accounting for surface level similarity in "passing the salt". What do you think?<br />Cultural activity is structurally common (both in the sense of non-holy, and 'shared alike; pertaining to all'), but directionally <i>either</i> normative or anti-normative (and yes, to varying degrees).<br /><br />I'm not sure if you agree that plumbers can render their service of plumbing unto Christ. Do you deny it?<br /><br />Whether an activity "lasts forever" is not the point. All our actions have a temporal quality; they are done in time, in a succession of moments from present to past. The question is whether the work of Christ's redemption can in any way effect the cultural activity of the believer. No one is arguing that it makes Christians' activity non-temporal.<br /><br />A Christian's cultural activities are "redeemed" or "transformed" from sin and idolatry to service unto Christ, for God's glory, when --as I have particularly argued-- they discern and act in accordance with God-ordained norms for cultural activity.<br /><br />Is it your position that Christians are <b>not able</b> to discern or act in accordance with God-given cultural norms in any way that is effected by the redemption they have in Christ?<br /><br />Do you deny what Calvin teaches, viz, that the use of all God's gifts is unclean, unless done in faith?Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-91280909410148946822012-05-31T00:32:12.053-04:002012-05-31T00:32:12.053-04:00Their Hookerean hangups about the regulative princ...Their Hookerean hangups about the regulative principle and jure divino church govt/discipline aside, I take this to support my point about Calvin's "internal&external" view of the two kingdoms:<br />http://calvinistinternational.com/2012/05/29/calvin-2k-2/Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-19607187429795833702012-05-29T01:39:15.165-04:002012-05-29T01:39:15.165-04:00Matthew, to "interpret these kinds of stateme...Matthew, to "interpret these kinds of statements [viz, neo2k'ers denials of the possibility of doing culture Christianly] in the light of what they are critiquing [viz, neocalvinism]" is exactly my aim.<br /><br />My conclusion is that neo2k'ers do not understand neocalvinist claims (and/or do not represent them accurately) given n2k ignoring the distinction between structure&direction, and that their denial is erroneous.<br /><br />I hope this much is clear. I've yet to see a good objection to these points. And I hope you can affirm what I'm saying.<br /><br />It's not clear to me that VanDrunen or other neo2k'ers think that all our actions in all of life should be Christian/redemptive in some sense. In what sense do they hold that cultural activity can be done Christianly? They seem to deny this without qualification.<br /><br />My own reading of the Institutes 3.19.15 independently lead me to the same conclusion as Wedgeworth/Escalante/Littlejohn, viz, the two kingdoms for Calvin are "internal/conscience & external/conduct".<br /><br />This is not to say that I don't recognize that Calvin distinguishes institutional church and state along with the powers of ministers and magistrates. Clearly he does. And clearly, this relates to the internal&external distinction in the following way: our consciences are bound by the Word of God, and the church properly ministers the Word. But Calvin seems very concerned to explain how ministerial (and magisterial) authority relates to conscience.<br /><br />It may be W/E/L have overstated a "non-institutional" case (I'm not sure they have denied its relation to the institutions). But it seems neo2k'ers have treated it as exclusively institutional, and Calvin's view still seems to me to be significantly (if not primarily) non-institutional (that is to say, focused on conscience).<br /><br />But I'll keep reading & thinking on it. Glad for your contribution.Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-20802947799951422612012-05-24T19:55:06.256-04:002012-05-24T19:55:06.256-04:00Baus,
A couple quick thoughts. First, while it is ...Baus,<br />A couple quick thoughts. First, while it is true that what you call the neo2kers say you can't do culture in a "Christian way", it seems to me that you have to interpret these kinds of statements (and I looked up those you cited from DVD and Horton) in light of what they are critiquing. In other words, Horton and DVD think these activities don't need to be explicitly Christian in the sense that many NeoCalvinists would say. But in another sense, as the DVD quote makes clear, they think all our action should be Christian, in all of life. Perhaps the distinction is simply between actions that are objectively Christian and actions that are subjectively Christian (though such a paradigm doesn't answer all the questions).<br /><br />Second, I'm surprised to hear you say you agree with Wedgeworth on Calvin. Have you seen the recent posts on my blog in response to Wedgeworth and Littlejohn? Also the one on Calvin and the Lord's Prayer? Also note Henreckson's comment on one of the posts. I don't think there is a single scholar who supports Wedgeworth's position on Calvin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-10061265604912868952012-05-24T16:21:32.275-04:002012-05-24T16:21:32.275-04:00Baus,
Thanks for the response, I certainly didn&#...Baus,<br /><br />Thanks for the response, I certainly didn't aim to confuse. Let me clarify, common activities, are well common, inert, neither holy nor evil, rather good as part of the activities enclosed in God's good creation. Those that engage in the activities can do so from either good, evil, or mixed (which is usually the case) motivations, but all lawful activities and vocations remain as they are regardless of who engages in them.<br /><br />For example, the activity of plumbing involves a scope of work, an estimate, procurement of materials, installation, testing, finish work, billing, and collection. These activities are common to the discipline, and whether or not someone is elect and cognizant of how he might glorify God in his plumbing activities will not typically end up with a work product that is any different than any non-believing plumber who is intent on rendering quality service (which is essential to sustaining business over the long term). The basis of the Christian's plumber's work being acceptable to God or "redemptive" has nothing to do with something inherent to plumbing, what is "redeemed" is the disposition, the "spiritual service of worship" (cf. Rom. 12) that the plumber renders to God in his work. The physical output will crumble in time, and need repair in order to maintain a functional plumbing system - or it will cease to be one, whether or not the plumbing was conducted with a disposition directed to God, or if it was a disposition directed selfishly. And, even the Christian plumber will always have an element of mixed motivations in his work, for which he is dependent on the mediatorial work of Christ for his service to be acceptable to God.<br /><br />The only "lasting" or "redemptive" vocation, where the work product itself endures is completed through the ministry of the Church and her duly called officers. The ministry of the Word will remain, because "the word of the Lord endures forever", and even this is again dependent on God, who gives the weight of eternity to this office, working his power through the weakness of the human minister.<br /><br />I had the sense that you were speaking of common activities in this way, I must have been mistaken here. But to clarify again - it is not the activity, or common thing in itself (art, music, plumbing, teaching) that is redeemed or redemptive, it is the work of Christ, through the agency of the Spirit that empowers his elect to go about their activities in a way that brings glory and honor to God. So, where I get the sense that you are more focused on the common activities themselves being somehow redemptive, I would place the locus of redemption on the disposition of the one who works, as this has been sanctified to serve God.<br /><br />Does that clarify? If not, feel free to press more, I'd like to get a clearer sense of where we are agreeing and disagreeing here, because in your fist response, I had felt a bit closer to where you stood than maybe we actually do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-91500410837573119762012-05-24T05:23:31.770-04:002012-05-24T05:23:31.770-04:00Jed, it seems to me that what you give with one ha...Jed, it seems to me that what you give with one hand, you take back with the other. <br /><br />You say you agree that common cultural activities <b>can</b> be done in a holy way, but then you say such activities are actually "inert" (whatever that means) and <b>cannot</b> be done in a holy way afterall.<br /><br />Then you say that you don't actually render your cultural activity as service unto Christ (contrary to Col.3:23-24), but you give Him only honor. <br /><br />How do you suppose you can do cultural activity in a holy way if Christ's redemption does not extend to it?<br /><br />We are in agreement that believers can sin (they can do common activity in a profane way).<br />But, on the other hand, you seem to want to separate believers as redeemed people from non-profane things they do. If the person is redeemed, why can't their activity be done in a redeemed way? And you haven't explained on what basis you disagree with Calvin's view of 1 Tim 4 (although you obviously do disagree) when he says this is the teaching of Scripture.<br /><br />You seem to contradict yourself quite directly in saying:<br />"<i>only through the mediatorial work of Christ are any of our works, or even prayers acceptable to God. So the notion that the believer can engage in transformational work on a redemptive scale seems to me to be lacking in biblical support</i>"<br /><br />You just said that our works are acceptable to God through Christ's mediatorial work. Well, that's exactly how believers engage in turning from profane use of things to a holy use of things: through their redemption in Christ! That's the transformation, and it only comes by Christ's Spirit. How is that not distinctively Christian? What is unclear about that?<br /><br />Help me out here.<br />I don't understand what you think you are affirming when you deny it in the next sentence.Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-36970779885965736522012-05-23T21:43:31.710-04:002012-05-23T21:43:31.710-04:00Baus,
I don't fundamentally have an issue wit...Baus,<br /><br />I don't fundamentally have an issue with the neo-Calvinist position that common activity can, and even should be, done in a holy (or directionally normative way). To me this is something that 2k and neo-Cal's can agree on, it's where we go from this point that differs.<br /><br />I would argue from a 2k perspective that because non-holy activities, aside from those truly profane and unlawful, are basically inert and bound up in a finite and perishing system, these cannot be transformed in any redemptive way. Individuals and their dispositions can be transformed in such a way that their work can be glorifying to God as genuine service rendered to him. However, what God is receiving in a redemptive manner is not the actual work-product or activity, but the honor rendered to him. I do not see how Christ's redemptive work extends to the common this side of the eschaton - and whatever service rendered to God by his redeemed people on this side of the eternal state only prefigures a cosmic order where the distinctions between common and holy are lifted.<br /><br />So, while culture may in fact be somewhat improved by the collective efforts of redeemed people within a culture, the culture in all of it's spheres and activities are not in the purview of God's redemptive work. The culture is part of this passing order as well, only the people (specifically the elect) in it are objects of redemption. <br /><br />My view of the profane use of the common extends not only to the unbeliever, but also to the believer. Take for example the Tabernacle in the Exodus narrative, God commissions Israel to build what was to be a holy vessel to be the center of God's manifest presence on earth. However, he proscribes the construction of the priestly amulet reading "Holy to the LORD" to consecrate the holy gifts Israel had given to him (Ex. 28), and the tabernacle, which Israel had constructed in obedience to God had to be sprinkled with blood before it was acceptable. Anything that the human does is profane, and even the believer's work still bears the marks of lingering (though no longer total) depravity, and only through the mediatorial work of Christ are any of our works, or even prayers acceptable to God. So the notion that the believer can engage in transformational work on a redemptive scale seems to me to be lacking in biblical support. And even the redemptive work of God seems to be confined Scripturally to the work he does on behalf of the elect. <br /><br />Any cultural improvement seems to me to only be the measure of how pervasive the effects of human depravity are abated within a particular culture at a particular time. This isn't to say that Christians shouldn't be very much interested in the betterment of their world, as this does seem to comport well with Christ's command to love one's neighbor. However, I am not sure if any true cultural improvements can be deemed as something distinctly Christian, as historically there have been high points in human culture and justice that have surfaced in both Christian and non-Christian cultures, and this seems to have it's source in Providence and the interests of humans on prevailing current social norms.<br /><br />But, in actual practice, I see the implications of neo-Calvinists such as you, or Godfrey over at WSCAL, to be far nearer to 2k than those of theonomist leanings, or even those who have co-opted neo-Calvinism and Kuyperian thought in the name of an unfortunate amalgam of social conservatism and Reformed praxis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-25767233588021093362012-05-23T00:38:28.314-04:002012-05-23T00:38:28.314-04:00Jed, my neocalvinist position is that common (stru...Jed, my neocalvinist position is that common (structurally non-holy) cultural activity can be done in a holy (directionally normative) way. Do you disagree?<br /><br />What do you make of Clouser's discussion of "passing the salt" in his <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/christianviewofeverything/" rel="nofollow">Christian View of Everything</a>? This seems to address the "external similarity" objections. The issue isn't about structural affairs, but directional (normative) ones.<br /><br />To be "redemptive" or "transformational" is to (in Calvin's terms) turn from profane use of the things of the world to a lawful use through our redemption in Christ. Do you deny that the unbelievers use of common things is a profane use? Do you deny that a believers use of common things can be a holy use? If so, on what basis do you differ with Calvin's interpretation of 1 Timothy 4?<br /><br />The neocalvinist (and Calvin's) view is that culture <b>is</b> transformed by Christians exactly when they do it lawfully (normatively) to God's glory. Transformed from profane to holy use through Christ's redemption. That's it. This isn't a denial of the Creator/creature distinction at all, and such an accusation is just another distortion and strawman.<br /><br />How does neo2k (Horton, VanDrunen, Hart) have a better view of vocation since they deny that a Christian's vocation is distinctly effected by redemption?<br /><br />I appreciate your feedback, and hope you'll continue interacting on this.Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-72741522472452866052012-05-23T00:10:30.760-04:002012-05-23T00:10:30.760-04:00Matthew, we agree.
I try to distinguish the Refor...Matthew, we agree.<br /><br />I try to distinguish the Reformers' (or Calvin's) "two kingdoms doctrine" from a prominent "contemporary two kingdoms view" that I have cumbersomely labeled <i>neotwokingdomism</i>.<br /><br />In your <a href="http://matthewtuininga.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/would-calvin-have-supported-magisterial-control-over-the-church-a-response-to-a-response-to-my-two-kingdoms-article/" rel="nofollow">discussion with Littlejohn</a>, I see that there are at least two main versions among the Reformers (neither of which denies the possibility of doing culture Christianly). My impression is of a Cartwright - Hooker divide, and they both claim fidelity to Calvin's view.<br /><br />I look forward to learning more on this from you both. My own reading of Calvin has been basically the same as what I take Wedgeworth to say <a href="http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/quick-post-on-calvin-and-2-kingdoms/" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.credenda.org/index.php/Theology/two-kingdoms-critique.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />In any case, the neotwokingdom advocates who deny that a Christian can do cultural activity in any distinctive Christian way are Horton, VanDrunen, and Hart (as I say in the post). I also <a href="http://honest2blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/sanctifying-common.html" rel="nofollow">quote Horton and VanDrunen</a>, showing their explicit denial.<br /><br />I think I hold to a radical version of neocalvinism, and a radically consistent version. I wonder what you have in mind about things Calvin says that I wouldn't like given my radical neocalvinism.Baushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15081376115291852909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5006349.post-55177066934857620412012-05-18T16:58:55.297-04:002012-05-18T16:58:55.297-04:00Baus,
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary as a (...Baus,<br /><br />Thanks for the thoughtful commentary as a (neo)twokingdomer - it's getting hard to wade through the multiplicity of 2k labels - I think the biggest issue here is how 2kers would view Christianly activity, and in this sense we may not be in as much substantial disagreement with confessional neo-calvinists as some may suspect.<br /><br />By this, I mean that the issue at hand is that an activity (assuming it is lawful) in and of itself, outside the church - is neither holy, nor unholy, it is simply an activity. I have less of a problem with a Christian attempting to engage in the oft-used example of plumbing in a Christianly way, but in the end the major differences between his work product and the work product of a non-believing plumber may be negligible, or non existent, both bearing the marks of expert workmanship. Now I do agree that the internal motivations for the Christian plumber will be radically different than the non-Christian, but the work in itself (i.e. the physical output) will pass as do all things on earth. So the work itself isn't redemptive, even if the glory that the Christian plumber renders to God in his efforts persists. <br /><br />I could extrapolate this out to other neo-cal spheres, demonstrating that what is redemptive is that God is now honored, as opposed to dishonored in the realm of human callings. Certainly this might have some transforming effect on those in the Christian sphere of influence, as they "see his good works and glorify God", or strive for similar excellence in their work. However the goal is not transformation of the common realm, sphere, or kingdom, it is simply the glory of God. Any work that God might do providentially to improve the civil realm, or supernaturally to convince sinners of their need for Christ is properly God's work, not the Christian's. This is why I think 2k has a better view of vocation than the neo-calvinistic articulation, simply because it upholds the Creator-creature distinction with respect to who accomplishes redemption on any scale.<br /><br />I have more questions related to eschatology and neo-calvinism, but I'll save those for next week hopefully.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com