Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Is Transformationism Postmillennial?
As some of you may be aware, in H. Richard Niebuhr's seminal work, Christ and Culture, he characterizes Calvin's position as "Christ the Transformer of Culture." Notwithstanding the fact that Niebuhr forgot to quote Calvin in the chapter devoted to him, the question could be raised whether "transformationism" is the best paradigm to capture the Church's relationship to, and responsibility in, society.
Transformationism, for those who haven't heard the term, is the view that the Church's role in this world includes transforming and redeeming the culture, and bringing it under the banner of Christ's Lordship (which, as contemporary Kuyperians tirelessly remind us, includes every "square inch" of the cosmos).
Obviously this position is directly opposed to the two kingdoms model, which recognizes culture as its own kingdom that is legitimate on its own terms, and therefore is not to be the object of redemptive efforts.
So here's my question: Is the desire to (in some sense) inaugurate the kingdom of God by means of cultural renewal more consistent with an amillennial or a postmillennial eschatology?
I'll show my cards later, but you first....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've always understood the Kuyperian model to be more Postmillenial than any other viewpoint, but especially moreso than the premil position.
ReplyDeleteI am going with Adam on this one. I think the transformational model is more consistent with a Postmill. view.
ReplyDeleteBut while I am here, I have a question for you Jason about the two kingdom model. If a Christian man is leading a nation, say a king. Where would he look for guidelines to make just laws? The Bible? Nature Law? If the Bible, would this Christian king outlaw all forms of paganism, as the OT Christian kings did, Nebuchadnezzars.
Yeah, I love to ask transformationists in the PCA, "So how long have you been postmillennial?" just to see how they respond.
ReplyDeleteOn where to find just law, consider Abraham and King Abimelech. He knew that the king of the Philistines would want to take Sarah as his wife, so he tells them she is his sister to prevent them from killing him. Then, when God tells the king that Sarah is a married woman, it is the king who ends up rebuking Abraham, which is ironic. And Abraham's defense, which turns out to be false, was that he "thought there was no fear of God in this place."
So if we truly believe that the works of God's moral law are written on the hearts of all men, then I don't see why you'd need a Bible to figure out what just laws are.
I mean, once you open the Bible to find out what your legislation would look like, it won't take long until you are enforcing Sabbath observance on the part of Muslims at sword point.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather not relive the Crusades....
That, plus it gets to really be too much to always be reaching for your Bible for every decision. I know we are supposed to brag about a well-worn Bible, but I gotta get things done in my day without always consulting the Bible for everything, especially when more often than not I know what the right answer is anyway. I wonder why a believer thinks he has to look at the Bible for common activities when it is meant for special purposes.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why the go-to example is usually how a “believing king makes laws”? You hardly ever hear anyone wonder aloud how a believing father might parent, or a believing student does his homework, or a believing shop-keeper does his work. For whatever reasons it seems presumed that the statesman has a bigger burden on him. My hunch is that this is a function of over-realizing an institution, like the way we think schooling makes and shapes human beings instead of just educating them. If I have a key to my own house what makes me think it is a key to the city?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your posts about your view of the two kingdoms, its a very important subject.
"if we truly believe that the works of God's moral law are written on the hearts of all men, then I don't see why you'd need a Bible to figure out what just laws are."
Why do you think God bothered to write the moral law in stone if everyone knew it anyway?
Would you consider honoring the Sabbath to be part of the moral law? If so, then your comment about enforcing the Sabbath seems meaningless because, guided by natural law, everyone should know that, and thus, guided by natural law, not the Bible, Sabbath-keeping should be enforced (to keep with your line of thinking).
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI think the Abimelech narrative may prove too much. If Abimelech has a kingdom law against adultery because he fears the God of Abraham, then where is seperation of church and state? Unless you are okay with a law that states, "You shall have no other gods but YHWY" (i.e. Nebuchadnezzar)
If Abimelech has a peronsal conviction against adultery because he personaly fears the God of Abraham, then this story proves too little as it does not answer the original question of how do we get/arrive at just laws?
Does the two kingdoms view allow for legislation that is written in the name of natural law given to us by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
---------------------
Steve,
"My hunch is that this is a function of over-realizing an institution, like the way we think schooling makes and shapes human beings instead of just educating them."
Would you care to flush this out a little more?
Faris
Brandon,
ReplyDelete"Why do you think God bothered to write the moral law in stone if everyone knew it anyway?"
Well, the Decalogue was the core of a much larger covenant whose design was to function as a typological covenant of works which, if Israel kept (relatively speaking), would allow them enjoyment of the land.
On the Sabbath, while I do see the principle of worshiping the one true God as part of natural/moral law, I don't think nature teaches anyone to do it on Saturday (and then to switch to Sunday after the resurrection). That was more cultic and ceremonial than moral.
Faris,
ReplyDelete"Does the two kingdoms view allow for legislation that is written in the name of natural law given to us by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?"
First, I would say that Abimelech had a "fear of God," not a "fear of the LORD." A subtle difference, but it highlights God's role as Creator and ruler of his creation (even over those outside the Abrahamic covenant community).
Your question is a good one. I would say that the 2K view allows for a government to recognize natural law, certainly. But what to do with that is another question altogether.
Do I believe that fornication is wrong? Yes. Do I think it should be made an illegal, punishable offense? No. This may be the dissident in me speaking, but I think that Uncle Sam should stick to protecting the public good and letting private citizens, churches, and other institutions worry about personal morality.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteHow does the effect of sin fit into your view of natural law? My comment about the 10 commandments was intended to show that it was necessary for God to clarify His moral law, as generally revealed, because men distort and suppress it.
John Robbins wrote an excellent article, "Some Problems with Natural Law." Its not available online, but its in his book Freedom and Capitalism: Essays on Christian Politics and Economics which I highly recommend.
He notes:
...the Marquis de Sade, perhaps more than any thinker before or since, has elucidated the implications of natural law theory. He wrote that "Nature teaches us both vice and virtue in our consitution... we shall examine by the torch of reason, for it is by this light alone that we can conduct our inquiry."
Accepting the premise that nature is normative, that there has been no ethical fall and no curse, and that God is therefore a superfluous hypothesis as far as ethics goes, de Sade concludes that, "there is just as much harm in killing an animal as a man, or just as little, and the difference arises solely from the prejudices of our vanity."
Since it is nature that prompts us to murder, steal, slander, and fornicate, and since we have a "natural inclination to such actions and ends as are fitting" - to quote Thomas Aquinas - none of these things can be wrong, for Nature is normative. The logic is commendable; the conclusion, reprehensible.
Faris asked for more fleshing out of, "My hunch is that this is a function of over-realizing an institution, like the way we think schooling makes and shapes human beings instead of just educating them."
ReplyDeleteFaris,
My point is that certain institutions are designed for certain purposes and not others (which is why I can work with something like Kuyper’s “sphere sovereignty,” although we may mean different things in the end). I think that western Christianity is by and large the culprit at affixing eternal stakes to temporal endeavor, so that we primarily think of something like statecraft as a means to effect righteousness. Statecraft, for example, becomes not just an effort at getting us from today to tomorrow; it becomes a project in clamoring for exact justice instead of being satisfied with a proximate one. Instead of waiting for the Most High to return and consummate an exact justice while we plod through the foibles of what it means to get through this life, we take it into our own hands. It is further complicated by functionally denying we do this and snarking at the idea that we live in a silent, soft theocracy.
When it comes to something like education we once again over-realize the function of an institution, namely school. We trade in a high view of the family to create and shape and nurture human beings and lend that power to an institution completely un-ordained to do this, the school, thus revealing the low view of the family. This is what is behind most of the philosophy of, say, Christian education. It also reveals the deeply entrenched intellectualizing of not only the creational enterprise of making human beings, but also instilling religious belief—both of which the family is ordained to be the primary agent (for good or ill, of course). We once had Henry Stob preach at an evening service. He is retired from teaching at Calvin College and is now a Headmaster at a Presby Xian school is south Florida. He passed on that only 25% of the families at his school attend church (!). This only helps make my point that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of certain institutions that seems to result in thinking education can take care of creational and redemptive tasks.
Such as it is, that’s my shot at fleshing that out a little more.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteYes, men suppress natural law, but they also have consciences that reflect, even unwittingly or unwillingly, their status as divine image-bearers.
Most cultures believe that murder is wrong, although they find ways to rationalize it when it suits them.
Which is ironic. If you think about it, what does it do to your argument (that cultures need natural law biblically explained to them) when we note that the US, a once "Christian nation," has been among the worst offenders in the last century when it comes to shedding innocent blood?
My point is that if you want to ignore natural law, you'll do it even with an open Bible in your lap, on on your desk in the Oval Office.
I don't think the fact that America is full of sinners says anything against my argument that men are sinners.
ReplyDeleteIf that's going to be your attitude, what's the point in having any laws at all?
My argument is not that "America is full of sinners." Your position, I thought, was that natural law is not enough, and that we need that law to be biblically interpreted. My response is that that argument doesn't work, since even quote-unquote Christian nations like ours still find way around obeying what our consciences tell us is immoral (in my example, thou shalt not kill).
ReplyDeleteWhy have laws at all? Because they function to restrain evil and punish it, thereby forming a relatively just and safe society from which God can call out a new people for a new society, which is heavenly and not earthly.
Zrim's point is spot on: Just because we can't have ultimate justice doesn't mean we must despise proximate justice. That's just earth (from an amill's perspective).
My point is that showing the sinfulness of man does nothing to discredit the sufficiency of Scripture.
ReplyDeleteI don't feel like you are really considering your words. You are saying that we shouldn't use the Bible to guide our state laws because people are sinful and they find ways around it. In the same breath you say that people find ways around natural law as well (conscience against killing). To simplify, I hear you saying we don't need God's, law as clarified in the Bible, because people disobey God. Am I misunderstanding you?
Your answer as to why have any laws doesn't seem to follow from what you just said. Now you are saying we should have laws because people obey them, and thus we have a decent society.
I'm not a Transformationist. I just don't agree with, or perhaps understand, your line of reasoning.
The point of the quote from Robbins shows the problem with natural law... you still have to define what it is, and as long as sin remains in this world, men will distort and suppress it so that no consensus can be reached.
ReplyDeleteI hear you saying that we don't need the Bible because the moral law is innately present in all men. I assume that you mean the 10 commandments when you refer to the moral law.
The problem is that people disagree as to what their conscience tells them. You claim that most cultures know murder is wrong, though some don't. You have absolutely no authority to tell them they are wrong, if it is a matter of conscience. The reason you can tell them they are wrong is because we have the moral law explicitly clarified for us in the Bible.
Sigh.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I'm not being clear, for that I apologize.
When it comes to the morality needed to order a reasonably just society, natural law is sufficient. This is why all cultures value life over death and truth over lying, even if they don't have quiet times.
When it comes to other important issues, neither natural nor special revelation is sufficient. For example, should we be capitalist or socialist? Should we have stop signs or roundabouts? On these issues, a host of factors come into play to make the decision. And the Bible isn't really one of them.
Maybe this all comes down to our doctrine of Scripture. Is it a blueprint for politics or economics, or is it an account of the creation, fall, redemption, and consummation of all things?
Answer #2 necessarily results in a limiting of the Bible's relevance to civil, earthly, temporal matters, in my opinion.
I'm not sure I can say what I'm saying any more clearly, so if I'm still not making sense, best we just chalk it up to the fact that blogs just aren't the best avenue for such discussions.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteMaybe I can help.
What I hear you saying is this:
Natural law does not work because people are sinful and they suppress the truth that God has reveled to them on their heart. Thus, we need the Bible to know what God wants us to do, morally .
Is this the essence of what you are saying? A simple yes will be fine if this is right. If not, please spell out your view again, for I have missed it then.
After you respond, I might be able to help clear a few things up. Or not.
Thanks for the clarification. I still disagree. Cultures disagree about life over death and about truth over lying (talk to someone from the Soviet Union).
ReplyDeleteThe Bible is sufficient when it comes to more important issues. Thou shalt not steal is a clear denunciation of socialism. I don't think transportation should be handled by the state so the decision over road signs is irrelevant, IMO.
I agree that this touches on our view of Scripture. It may not be a blueprint for politics, but it has implications for politics.
I think its ridiculous to say that if the Bible is about heavenly matters it cannot be relevant to earthly matters. That seems to me to be an extreme over-reaction to the overemphasis we see today on the temporal.
I think I understand you more clearly, I just strongly disagree. I would very highly recommend reading Robbins' book as I think his perspective would greatly challenge you.
Josh,
ReplyDeleteYes.
Brandon,
ReplyDelete"Thou shalt not steal is a clear denunciation of socialism."
I don't want to be harsh, but this is hardly a clear denouncement of socialism. The new Testament is clear that the governing authorities have the right to demand taxes, and Jesus was clear that we should pay them ("render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's").
What I'm saying is that since the new testament gives validity to taxation by the state, it is improper to refer to taxation (even if it is outrageous or being redistributed as the state sees fit) as stealing.
Just my $0.02.
taxation does not equal socialism
ReplyDeleteAnd my point is that socialism does not equal stealing. Your Biblical argument against socialism could not simply stop at "Thou shalt not steal," because that does not say enough.
ReplyDeleteFor the state to take money from us would, prima facie, seem like stealing. But since God would never endorse the state's taking money from its citizens if it did qualify as stealing, we can therefore be confident that this verse is not enough to strike down socialism.
You know what would be helpful is if there were a Bible verse that said, "thou shalt not establish a governmental system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community."
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteHere is the problem.
We have the Bible but because of sin people still do not do what it say. They still misinterpret it.
Take this whole discussion for instance. We are all Christians, but we cannot agree on what the Bible teaches about this issue. This is, however, not a problem with the Bible. It is a problem with us. This is the fundamental issue.
The same is true with natural law. Natural law is sufficient to use to gain a right understanding of how to govern, but sinners suppress the truth of it. This is not a problem with nature law, it is a problem with sinner.
Giving us the Bible does not stop sinners from suppressing the truth. Thus, your solution to the problem with natural law (namely, the giving of the Bible) does not real solve the problem.
p.s. FYI, using Robins as an "authority" is not going to gain much traction in almost all Reformed circles.
I've always had something of a soft spot for Robbins. Maybe because he's so polemic every time he writes something.
ReplyDeleteAdam,
ReplyDeleteI was being facetious, I apologize. Yes, the issue is more complex than that, but my point is that the Bible is not silent on the issue and we should not ignore it.
You know what would be helpful is if there were a Bible verse that said, "thou shalt not establish a governmental system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community."
It might also be helpful if there was a verse that said "Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, which is made up of the Father and the Holy Spirit as well, and, btw, the Federal Vision is a heresy." Some things we have to work to understand.
Thou shalt not steal implies the existence of personal property, else there is nothing to steal. Socialism seeks to eradicate personal property. There is a lot to talk about on this issue, and I don't want to get completely sidetracked and make this page 100 posts long. Feel free to email me if you want to talk about it more. I also recommend Robbins' MP3 lectures on economics
You will not find a more qualified person to talk on the combination of the two.
"Thou shalt not steal implies the existence of personal property, else there is nothing to steal. Socialism seeks to eradicate personal property."
ReplyDeleteTouche, Brandon. After writing my last post, I was thinking the exact same thing regarding the personal property issue. I think you're also right that it's more complex than something a single verse can solve. And for the record, I am not a socialist, I just like to argue.
Josh,
ReplyDeleteThank you for trying to clarify.
The difference is that when talking about the Bible there is an unchanging, objective standard outside ourselves to compare our differing thoughts to. There is no such standard regarding our consciences.
I still don't see why God bothered to write the 10 commandments in stone if it wouldn't provide any clarity. Why didn't He just save His breath and say "obey your conscience."
Psalm 19:7 The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple;
8 the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes;
Commenting on this passage, Calvin says:
“The first commendation of the law of God is, that it is perfect. By this word David means, that if a man is duly instructed in the law of God, he wants nothing which is requisite to perfect wisdom. In the writings of heathen authors there are no doubt to be found true and useful sentences scattered here and there; and it is also true, that God has put into the minds of men some knowledge of justice and uprightness; but in consequence of the corruption of our nature, the true light of truth is not to be found among men where revelation is not enjoyed, but only certain mutilated principles which are involved in much obscurity and doubt. David, therefore, justly claims this praise for the law of God, that it contains in it perfect and absolute wisdom.”
I also really don't care what people's opinion of Robbins are. I know everyone hates him. But I would prefer it if people would show me why he's wrong instead of telling me he's mean.
Adam,
ReplyDeleteI like to argue too, sometimes too much. I appreciate the sharpening.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteNatural law is as much "outside of us" as the laws of logic are. Further, natural law is as objective as the laws of logic are.
The laws of logic are not written down anywhere and people try not to sure them, but we still hold them to the standards of logic. They do not have to be written down in order for us to hold them to it. The same is true of natural law. Even though people do not live up to natural law, does not mean it is not objective and outside of them.
Brandon said, “The problem is that people disagree as to what their conscience tells them. You claim that most cultures know murder is wrong, though some don't. You have absolutely no authority to tell them they are wrong, if it is a matter of conscience. The reason you can tell them they are wrong is because we have the moral law explicitly clarified for us in the Bible.”
ReplyDeleteHis assumptions are that 1) the conscience is not nearly good enough to navigate through this world and 2) that all we have to do is appeal to the Bible and it will all get cleared up. But neither of these makes any sense.
Brandon, the conscience is God-given. Why have such a low view of it? Our eyes are also from above. True enough, often times we see things that aren’t there and they play tricks on us, etc., but does that mean we ought to not use them in our day-to-day operations? I don’t know about you, but I really like having my eyes each day. They are really, super-dooper helpful, even if they get harassed by hay fever, are prone to ocular-migraines, get tired and all the rest (proximate justice, remember). Why were we created with a conscience and eyes if they are so untrustworthy? What you seem to be suggesting is that if a medium does not yield perfection (exact justice) it is of little to no use. My feet have fallen arches. That’s good enough to keep me from being drafted, but should I whack them off? Bad as they are, I’ll keep them, thank you. Moreover, I’ll use them with gusto!
And what’s this jazz about just opening the Bible in order to clarify things? Are you really suggesting that telling those who couldn’t care any less about Holy Writ “the Bible says so” is going to solve things? The problems here is that you have to do the harder work of appealing to that which is common to us all when wanting a common result, not what is special to a few of us. I think there can be a fair amount of laziness informing the “the Bible says so” approach. I also think subsuming beneath is a goodly amount of discomfort at the prospect of losing the day on any given matter. But breaking the “God-glass” in desperation is not wise. Is it really that awful to lose on this or that issue? I lose all the time. And how is “the Bible says so” not a complete mis-use of it? It reveals how we get to the next age, not how to get through this one. Is the Bible really a handbook for living or not?
Sometimes I wonder about those who deny being something like a "Transformer" yet they have all the makings. I can’t help but wonder if that is a function of just being conditioned to deny something because the majority of one’s circles say they must without thinking through things more carefully.
Zrim
Zrim,
ReplyDeleteIf a doctor was able to fix your foot, would you blow him off and tell him your broken foot is just as good as a corrected one? Perhaps a fear of being drafted would lead you to make such a statement, just like your fear of the supposed consequences of acknowledging the Bible's authority over all of life leads you to reject it.
How would any of you respond to this:
"Since it is nature that prompts us to murder, steal, slander, and fornicate, and since we have a "natural inclination to such actions and ends as are fitting" - to quote Thomas Aquinas - none of these things can be wrong, for Nature is normative."?
Many people's conscience does not tell them that their sins are wrong. Would you simply leave it up to a vote and say majority rules?
Oh, and I have a low view of the conscience because of Romans 1
ReplyDelete"Why were we created with a conscience and eyes if they are so untrustworthy?"
ReplyDeleteWe were given a conscience so that we would be without excuse when we are judged. We were given eyes in order to function in and subdue this world, not to discern truth.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteWould be so kind as to respond to my comments. I think they show a difficulty for your position.
Thank you.
:)
Brandon wondered, “If a doctor was able to fix your foot, would you blow him off and tell him your broken foot is just as good as a corrected one?”
ReplyDeleteMy feet aren’t broken, they are just flat. I think you are conflating essence and condition here. My view of creation is that it is very good in essence but fallen in condition. It isn’t “broken,” meaning a marred essence. Just like you must distinguish between total depravity and utter depravity, you must distinguish between the essence and condition of creation. You have to distinguish between creation being “pretty good” and “very good.” You aren’t doing any of that. Try some of this on for size:
“When the Reformed Churches turn to history to begin to explain or mitigate the problem of sin and evil, we are following Scripture. The fact is that God created everything and everyone ‘good.’ The affirmation is terribly important. It was widely held in the medieval church that creation (including humanity) was inherently defective by virtue of its finitude. It was widely assumed that there is a sort of scale of being (think of a ladder) at the top of which is God and at the bottom of which is creation and what creation needs is ‘perfection,’ i.e., to move up the scale of being toward God. In this scheme, the fundamental human problem is not sin but finitude. Sin is regarded as a symptom of a more fundamental problem.
This doctrine continues to be the magisterial teaching of the Roman Church, which teaches that humans and God both participate in ‘being.’ Many evangelicals are also influenced by this way of thinking. Their piety and theology revolve around the quest to deny or over come their humanity. One sees this in the fundamentalist rules that say, in effect, ‘don't touch,’ ‘don't taste’ (Col 2:21). The influence of this scale of being idea reflects itself in false dualisms, where that which is immaterial is good and that which is material is either thought to be evil or worthy of suspicious. The old Roman Catholic and fundamentalist view of sex as inherently sinful reflects such a dualism. The evangelical (and fundamentalist and revivalist) neglect of the visible, institutional church. Much of that neglect or denial is grounded in the view that God does not operate through human, created things such as sermons, water, bread, and wine. One sees this tendency in the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation. The elements cannot remain mere elements. The essence of the elements of communion must be transformed into divinity.
Even more fundamental to this whole discussion is the question of the relation of nature to grace. There is much confusion surrounding this topic. There are four basic views
1) Rome says that grace perfects nature. This is the ‘scale of being’ view already described. In this scheme nature, as such, is thought to be defective.
2) The Anabaptists (and many evangelicals) say that grace obliterates nature. Like Rome, these folk regard nature, as such, as inherently defective, but unlike Rome, they expect grace to utterly replace creation altogether. Various forms of perfectionism and the higher life/second blessing doctrine.
3) Pantheists and liberals equate grace with nature. In this scheme there is no distinction whatever between nature and grace. In this scheme there is no distinction the Creator and the creature. There can be no doctrine of sin and redemption except to reduce everything to metaphor and figure. ‘Sin’ can be a lack of awareness of one's potential (or state) and ‘redemption’ becomes realization of one's state.
4) The confessional Protestant view is that grace renews nature, that the latter was created good (and was, therefore, not defective) and has been corrupted or is put to corrupt use by virtue of sin. All human faculties (e.g., the intellect, the will, and the affections) are radically corrupted by sin. Because of the fall, by inclination, we think wrongly, we choose wrongly, and we love wrongly. It is only by grace that we ever come to think, will, or love rightly.
There is no question that humans are fallen and sinful. Rom 1-3 and Eph 1-2 (among other places) is abundantly clear about that. It is less clear to me that creation per se is fallen or sinful nor is it clear to me that creation or creational enterprises need to be redeemed, though evangelicals and transformationalists speak this way routinely. Creation is subject to futility (Rom 8:19-23) and is groaning to be released from the bondage to decay and to enter into the consummate state, but that is not quite the same thing as to say that creation is ‘fallen.’ Rocks don't have any faculties. They don't sin. I doubt that dogs sin -- my Scottish Terrier is stubborn, but we wouldn't expect any less from a proper Scotsman would we? Certainly he suffers from the consequences of the fall, but whatever we say in that regard, nothing about the fall makes creation, as such, evil or even something that needs to be ‘redeemed.’ I worry about the effect of equivocating about sin and redemption by applying the same terms to humans and creationally generally. The effect is to broaden thus weakening the ideas of sin and redemption.
Nature generally may need to be renewed, but certainly human nature (it was humans who sinned and they who are redeemed) must be renewed by grace. Humanity, however, remains humanity even in a state of grace. Humans shall ever and only be human, even in glorification."
Brandon continued, “Perhaps a fear of being drafted would lead you to make such a statement, just like your fear of the supposed consequences of acknowledging the Bible's authority over all of life leads you to reject it.”
Huh? I don’t reject the Bible (!). How’d you get that? I’m in the mainstream of Protestant and Reformed orthodoxy. I believe that God is sovereign over all of life.
"Since it is nature that prompts us to murder, steal, slander, and fornicate, and since we have a "natural inclination to such actions and ends as are fitting" - to quote Thomas Aquinas - none of these things can be wrong, for Nature is normative."?
I am not sure I follow (where’s the “then” statement?). But I wonder if more conflation is afoot here. Our sinful nature—not our nature—prompts us to do these things.
“Many people's conscience does not tell them that their sins are wrong. Would you simply leave it up to a vote and say majority rules?”
You have missed my point about the eyes. Sometimes my eyes give me bad info, but I am not about to gauge them out. And, yes, I could "leave it up to a vote." The only reason you are so discomforted by that is you are afraid something might go awry. But that happens all the time, no matter what you do. I vote that Stellman is right. I will likely lose. Oh no, now what?
Thanks for the reply, I will have to wait to respond until later, just wanted to make a quick comment.
ReplyDelete"The only reason you are so discomforted by that is you are afraid something might go awry."
It's never good to assume. I am not a pragmatist. I do believe that we should look to the Bible to answer the question "How should we govern" because I think its easiest or it works best. I reject deciding laws by popular vote because I reject mob rule. I do not think that might makes right.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteThen how do these two claims co-exist:
"I'm not a Transformationist."
"I do believe that we should look to the Bible to answer the question 'How should we govern' because I think its easiest or it works best."
I am curious as to what your understanding of either theonomy and/or transformationalism is. You formally reject it but talk the talk nevertheless.
Jason,
ReplyDelete"Do I believe that fornication is wrong? Yes. Do I think it should be made an illegal, punishable offense? No. This may be the dissident in me speaking, but I think that Uncle Sam should stick to protecting the public good and letting private citizens, churches, and other institutions worry about personal morality."
First let me agree that I want private citizens and churches to worry about personal morality. I don't think the state can bring in or initiate or usher in the kingdom of God.
That being said, you want Uncle Sam to protect the public good what is the definition of public good. At some point Uncle Sam has to ask himself, "How do I protect the public good?"
Is fornication a matter of personal morality? Surely. Is fornication only a matter of personal morality? Absolutely not. Fornication in reality is a very non-personal sin involving not only an act between two people but after the fact involves their respective families, any illegitimate children, the welfare state, the spread of disease, etc. To take fornication off the table because we all assume natural law will not let us address the issue is precisely the problem that looking to the Bible for wisdom helps us solve.
However, in no way do I think the government can punish lust or coveting or other sins of the heart. The government is not omniscient and should not try to be. Though they do have consequences for the whole society they cannot be known except by confession of the individual and as far as I can tell there were never any theocratic-deuteronomic punishments for those sins.
So let's say Uncle Sam sits down and says, "Well I need some wisdom to help me decide what is a legitimate societal concern." If Uncle Sam just assumes that fornication is off the table, because he believes it to be a purely personal sin, he has missed a very practical concern.
Now, I don't advocate this position because I want to go on some witch hunt and kill all the fornicators. That is not my agenda. However, when someone is thinking, "Hey maybe I'll go to the club and get my fornication groove on" I want them to think twice about it. Why? Because I don't want huge family problems in my country. I don't want the rampant spread of STD's in my country. I don't want tons of illegitimate children in my country. And most importantly I want them to think this through. "Why is it that we have laws against fornication? Isn't it just a matter of personal morality between two people?" No it isn't. Fornication is a sin and there is a law against it because it has dire consequences for the people living in God's good creation.
Just some thoughts.
Faris
Faris,
ReplyDelete"And most importantly I want [the government] to think this through: "Why is it that we have laws against fornication? Isn't it just a matter of personal morality between two people?" No it isn't. Fornication is a sin and there is a law against it because it has dire consequences for the people living in God's good creation."
First off, I didn't know fornication was illegal. What State do you live in?
Second, I think you are proving way more than you intend by your argument. Maybe fornication's an easy one because it's a sin that we Christians think is bad. But what about other public offenses that the Christian Right embraces with holy gusto?
For example, why not argue that capitalism is harmful to the public good? What about the war on terror? Or churches endorsing Huckabee (when he was in the race)? Or public funding for faith-based initiatives?
My point is not to argue the merits or demerits of these particular examples (so please don't bait me, I won't bite). My point is simply that one man's crime is another's crusade. If you want the Bible to be relevant, you may find out it's so relevant that it aims its sights on your favorite cultural idols (and mine).
Best to just let it address what it was designed to address.
The fornication law referrence was still in the hypothetical. I could have made that more clear.
ReplyDeleteBrandon,
ReplyDeleteYou appear to be a pretty serious epistemological Clarkian, so I was wondering if you could answer the one truly baffling question I have about the Robbins/Clark epistemology:
"If you cannot truly know something unless it is in the Bible, then how can you trust the media by which the contents of the bible are communicated (in most cases, printed on paper with ink lettering)?"
I know this is an old question that Clarkians have had to answer ever since the stars were made, but I have hoped beyond hope that I could someday find a satisfactory response to it.
PS: Sorry for the rabbit hole.
PPS: If you happen to not be an epistemological Clarkian, I would at this point be surprised, but I would also offer my sincerest apologies.
I'm a studying Clarkian, so I can't adequately answer your question, maybe in a few years. Clark would refer to Augustine's Concerning the Teacher
ReplyDeleteI don't know that that's at the heart of this discussion though.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteSorry for typo. It should have said:
"I do NOT believe that we should look to the Bible to answer the question 'How should we govern' because I think its easiest or it works best."
Don't know if that would change your question though. I haven't studied theonomy in much depth, but from what I can tell a key element is their rejection of the distinction between the moral law and the mosaic law. I disagree with them there. They also have a desire to "reclaim the crown rights of Christ" by means of an earthly kingdom. I think John 18:36 adequately answers that question. I do not believe the church's goal is to transform culture by the use of the sword.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly your post has to do with what I am arguing. Sorry, its just over my head. We may be misunderstanding each other, I think the foot analogy threw us off track.
"I am not sure I follow (where’s the “then” statement?). But I wonder if more conflation is afoot here. Our sinful nature—not our nature—prompts us to do these things."
The then statement would be: Then murdering, stealing, etc are lawful as determined by natural law.
I understand the distinction between the fallen and unfallen nature, but how can one distinguish between the two apart from Scripture? If natural law is guided by conscience, and conscience is corrupt, then what? To say that we should just settle for corrupt laws because earth isn't perfect doesn't solve anything because you still have to decide which corrupt laws.
Josh,
ReplyDeleteI avoided your question because its a good one. Shooting from the hip I might call upon John 1:5,9 with some influence from Clark, but those would perhaps also apply to natural law. We would then need to reconcile it with Romans 1.
One question would be: Are the laws of logic disputed as the laws of nature are? If so, how can the disagreements be resolved? Should the laws of logic be voted on?
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteOK, so here is the reconstruction:
“Since it is nature that prompts us to murder, steal, slander, and fornicate, and since we have a ‘natural inclination to such actions and ends as are fitting,’ then murdering, stealing, etc are lawful as determined by natural law.”
Sometimes it is best to step back and just use common sense. Does this really make any? Everyone knows that murder and stealing are wrong; nobody is suggesting what is unlawful actually is. Part of the problem is determining just what murder, for example, looks like. Stellman might tell you that what is happening in Iraq is a form of murder. Another would say it isn’t; a fairly terrible debacle, but not murder.
Notice that moral law is always fairly vague. One analogy I have used, such as it is, is the practice of tipping after a meal out. You might tip our server more than me. You could be accused of being less than prudent with your money, while it could be said that you are simply being generous (a biblical command). By the same token (so to speak), I could be accused of being less than generous, but I could say that I am being prudent (a biblical command). But either way, neither of us may leave without paying the bill. That would be stealing.
You asked, “I understand the distinction between the fallen and unfallen nature, but how can one distinguish between the two apart from Scripture? If natural law is guided by conscience, and conscience is corrupt, then what? To say that we should just settle for corrupt laws because earth isn't perfect doesn't solve anything because you still have to decide which corrupt laws.”
I know you think the eye and foot analogy got us off on the wrong, ahem, foot, but I still think it works. You still seem to have the assumption that exact justice is the goal. It isn’t, to my mind (which is also fallen, but I still use it without reservation). Here is an assignment: go down to your local precinct and look at all the laws on the books. Find the ones with which you disagree. Chances are you’ll find quite a few. Consider the fact that you find yourself abiding by them more than you don’t (I hope). Every law is corrupt and yet we are biblically charged to abide by them. Now what? I say we err on the side of submission, since biblical ethics seem to have more of a concern for that than seeking exact justice.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what you mean by "as". But I can say that not everyone agrees on the laws of logic. Further, the Bible never gives us the laws of logic. The only way to gain the laws of logic are through reason, fallen reason.
With such a high view of logic, I am not sure how Clark can get there. That is to say, I do not understand how Clark can hold so strongly to the laws of logic, given his epistemology. If we can only know what is in the Bible and the Bible never gives us the laws of logic, how can Clark hold to the laws of logic.
"I am not sure what you mean by 'as.'"
ReplyDeleteIs that Clintonian logic? Friendly joke, that, in the course of figuring out this blessed login system. Carry on.
Is this thing on...testing, testing?
ReplyDeleteI was not trying to be Clinton. I just was unclear if he might as , in the sense of the exact same. I do not think the relationship between natural law and logic as identical, but I think they are very similar.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDelete"I know you think the eye and foot analogy got us off on the wrong, ahem, foot, but I still think it works. You still seem to have the assumption that exact justice is the goal. It isn’t, to my mind (which is also fallen, but I still use it without reservation). Here is an assignment: go down to your local precinct and look at all the laws on the books. Find the ones with which you disagree. Chances are you’ll find quite a few. Consider the fact that you find yourself abiding by them more than you don’t (I hope). Every law is corrupt and yet we are biblically charged to abide by them. Now what? I say we err on the side of submission, since biblical ethics seem to have more of a concern for that than seeking exact justice."
You may have missed the last part of my response, which anticipated this paragraph. The question is not about if we should obey the law, we should (and we know we should because we read the Bible). The question is about making the laws in the first place. We are in a unique situation in America where we participate in this process. In this sense, we all have limited civil magistrate duties. As I noted, if you want to settle for corrupt laws, you still have to decide which corrupt laws. A brief study of the history of secular political philosophy will show that there are tremendous, perhaps insurmountable difficulties here.
The Bible tells us to seek holiness:
Matthew 5:48 - "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
1 Peter 1:15-16 - "...but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, 'You shall be holy, for I am holy...'"
Should we abandon exact perfection, exact holiness as our goal because we cannot attain it? Or should we continually strive for it?
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteI think it is a matter of perspective.
We are told that even the holiest of us make such gains in this life that are as to be nearly undetectable. The HB, in Q/A 62 asks, “But why cannot our good works be the whole, or part of our righteousness before God? Answer. Because, that the righteousness, which can be approved of before the tribunal of God, must be absolutely perfect, and in all respects conformable to the divine law; and also, that our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin.” If that is really true, does it not seem to you that a more measured and sober take should be considered when getting ahead of ourselves and thinking we are closer to exact justice than proximate?
I don’t think the striving for holiness means what we naturally think it means, which is to say, easily discerned by something like “better laws.” The question is, what does holiness actually look like? To my lights, it is more mysterious than not. The difference seems to be between those who will at once strive for holiness not knowing what it is exactly AND waiting for God to finally consummate it, and those who think they have a pretty good idea of what it is and see God as more an assistant in helping them effect it. Nobody is against hard work and honest striving, Brandon, it’s just that, well, perspective is just as important.
Zrim
Steve,
ReplyDeleteAs I understand you, you believe that we should not use the Bible to develop a political philosophy because we cannot have perfect justice. Instead, we should rely on the less perfect natural law to develop a political philosophy. Is this correct?
If that is really true, does it not seem to you that a more measured and sober take should be considered when getting ahead of ourselves and thinking we are closer to exact justice than proximate?
I have never said that it is possible to attain perfect justice in this world, only that it should be our goal. In the same way, we can never achieve perfect holiness in this world, but it should be our goal.
I am not necessarily equated the pursuit of holiness with the establishment of just laws, I am making a comparison.
The question is, what does holiness actually look like?
In part it means taking every thought captive to obey Christ. It means imitating Christ in how we act, and most importantly, how we think. Thus, we endeavor to see the world the way the Bible does.
To my lights, it is more mysterious than not.
If we can't know what holiness is, then our pursuit of it is vain.
“As I understand you, you believe that we should not use the Bible to develop a political philosophy because we cannot have perfect justice. Instead, we should rely on the less perfect natural law to develop a political philosophy. Is this correct?”
ReplyDeleteWell, partly. Actually, the most important reason is that it is a total misuse of the Bible to treat it as a hand book for living to get through this world instead of a revelation of how we get to the next. The fact that perfect justice in the here and now is unattainable is a peripheral reason not to misuse the Bible.
“I have never said that it is possible to attain perfect justice in this world, only that it should be our goal. In the same way, we can never achieve perfect holiness in this world, but it should be our goal.”
If we can’t do something how can it be a goal? I’ll wait for perfect justice from the hand of God and not lose much sleep. I know that sounds apathetic and is of no use to thwart the next Hitler (the usual go-to reason we have to worry so much), but evil at the hands of men has always and will always happen.
“The question is, what does holiness actually look like?
In part it means taking every thought captive to obey Christ. It means imitating Christ in how we act, and most importantly, how we think. Thus, we endeavor to see the world the way the Bible does.”
You’re still speaking in vagaries. I still want to know what that looks like. Does it come in the form of democracy when it comes to political questions? Does it mean Roe has to be overturned or maintained? Does it mean no more poverty in the world? What's it look like? If holiness is to be a goal in this world, how do we know when we have arrived? Goals seem to demand that we can know how success can be measured.
“To my lights, it is more mysterious than not.
If we can't know what holiness is, then our pursuit of it is vain.”
I am not that pessimistic. Again, you seem to have an all-or-nothing view here, which seems to result in a form of perfectionism (“If I can’t have it all then I quit”). I don’t know or understand what a lot of things are but still don’t stop striving for them.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI really feel like you are jumping around a lot. We need to look at this step by step. If you want a detailed map of what a Biblical political philosophy looks like, then that is another discussion. Right now we are just deciding if the Bible should inform our political philosophy.
If you want something to scratch your itch now, try
Introduction to Political Philosophy
and
Poliical Philosophy: Biblical Answers
I am not that pessimistic. Again, you seem to have an all-or-nothing view here, which seems to result in a form of perfectionism (“If I can’t have it all then I quit”). I don’t know or understand what a lot of things are but still don’t stop striving for them.
If you don't know what you're striving for, then you're not striving for it. There is no way to strive for something unless you have an idea of what it is. Else we are the blind leading the blind. The Bible shows us what holiness is, and we seek that holiness. If you want a detailed list of what this is, read Bridges "The Pursuit of Holiness" or something along those lines.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteI guess one man’s jumping around is another’s anticipation of questions. But okay, no, the Bible ought not inform our political philosophy. That falls into the category of “this world’s affairs” and it is thus illegitimate to employ the Bible for it purposes.
“If you don't know what you're striving for, then you're not striving for it.”
This sounds like it’s in the family of, “If you don’t care like I do then you don’t care.” I am striving. It may not be like you, but that doesn’t mean I am not striving.
“There is no way to strive for something unless you have an idea of what it is.”
That’s just it, we only have “an idea” of what it is.
So, Jerry Bridges has it all figured out? All I need is his book? I know, that sounds facetious, but you can’t be telling me that Jerry has figured something out the rest of humanity has overlooked.
IMO your comments have missed the point of this discussion. If we are to apply the same logic to sanctification as we are to your view of political philosophy, then we should not use the Bible in our sanctification.
ReplyDeleteI figured out how to "get to the next world." I trust in Christ's atonement for my sin. Should I put my Bible on the shelf now? To do anything else would be employing the Bible for "this world's affairs."
Some words from Calvin that are relevant to this discussion as a whole:
ReplyDelete"Moreover, the very things contained in the two tables are, in a manner, dictated to us by that internal law, which, as has been already said, is in a manner written and stamped on every heart. For conscience, instead of allowing us to stifle our perceptions, and sleep on without interruption, acts as an inward witness and monitor, reminds us of what we owe to God, points out the distinction between good and evil, and thereby convicts us of departure from duty. But man, being immured in the darkness of error, is scarcely able, by means of that natural law, to form any tolerable idea of the worship which is acceptable to God. At all events, he is very far from forming any correct knowledge of it. In addition to this, he is so swollen with arrogance and ambition, and so blinded with self-love, that he is unable to survey, and, as it were, descend into himself, that he may so learn to humble and abase himself, and confess his misery. Therefore, as a necessary remedy, both for our dullness and our contumacy, the Lord has given us his written Law, which, by its sure attestations, removes the obscurity of the law of nature, and also, by shaking off our lethargy, makes a more lively and permanent impression on our minds."
-Institutes, 2.8.1
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteCome now. To accuse of having missed the point of a discussion is a veiled way of saying I have not conceded your points. I think you get the point generally, you just disagree with me specifically. Granted, you do seem fairly confused insofar as you deny being a form of transformer while you also talk the talk.
The way you speak of “figuring [something] out” and “using the Bible in our sanctification” is coarse and uncouth at best and just more of the same at worst. And it is entirely left-of-center to interpret anything I have said to mean that we should shelve the Bible. I am fairly lost as to how you could conclude that. Again, though, it sure seem like it’s species of the genus that, “If you don’t care like me then you don’t care.” Sanctification is a whole different project from political philosophy.
The problem here is that I make a distinction you don’t, between the proper understanding of otherworldiness and this-worldliness. I know you deny it, but in point of fact you are a transformer. You essentially agree that Christianity “has direct bearing on and an obvious implications for the affairs of this temporal world, that the Bible is a handbook for living. I say just pass the bread and wine.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI wish there was more than meets the eye and I could shift into a fighter jet, but I am not a transformer.
If you could be so kind as to define a "transformer" for me, I can tell you if I am one. If a transformer is someone who believes the Bible is an authority in everything that it says, then I am one. If it means more than that, then I probably am not.
Do you think that the Holy Spirit was in error for writing Romans 13:1-7? It is clearly dealing with "this-worldliness". If you do not think it is "this-worldliness", can you please provide a clear definition of what is?
“I wish there was more than meets the eye and I could shift into a fighter jet, but I am not a transformer.”
ReplyDeleteI’d be a bird, myself.
“If you could be so kind as to define a ‘transformer’ for me, I can tell you if I am one. If a transformer is someone who believes the Bible is an authority in everything that it says, then I am one. If it means more than that, then I probably am not.”
The operating definition, as I understand it, is in my above post: He who holds that, “Christianity has both a direct bearing on and obvious implication for the temporal affairs of this world.” He who believes that “the Bible is the only infallible rule for doctrine and practice (a bit more precise and narrow than ‘an authority,’ BTW) is what is called a Christian. I am one of those, which means, that no, I do not think the HS was in error (!). Ro 13:1-7 makes my point about NT ethics being more about submission than in constructing righteousness (as you seem to imply, “The question is about making the laws in the first place. We are in a unique situation in America where we participate in this process. In this sense, we all have limited civil magistrate duties.”).
Re “this-worldliness,” there are two kinds, one bad and one good. Being “in the world” is good but “being of it” is not. There is a difference between a world-affirming piety and one that places too much hope in the things of this world. The best of the Reformed tradition knows how to balance these two things rather well. Ro 13 is a this-worldliness, but the good kind. There are two kinds of otherworldliness, good and bad. The bad kind is Gnostic and seeks to be redeemed from the world, sees creation as fundamentally flawed and in need of redemption. The good kind at once rejects that low view of creation and seeks the redemption of creation (as opposed to from creation). Two-kingdomites are too busy responding to creation appropriately on its own terms (lament, joy, boredom, etc.) and waiting for God to redeem it to be concerned with improving it by the imaginations of their own minds. We don’t see the world getting much worse or better as time either advances or retreats.
So then, by your logic, Christians should not hold public office, because that is focusing on the bad kind of "this-worldliness"?
ReplyDeleteBrandon,
ReplyDeleteI have to say, it is attestation to consistency that these sorts of questions are frequently asked of two-kingdom theorizing.
No, not by my logic at all. In fact, to the contrary. We are not in the stream of the Radical Reformation that suggests that sort of worldly withdrawal, pacifism, etc. Being in the world really does mean being in the world to any and all lawful degrees. And not being of the world really does mean not being of it, specifically, not putting hope in this passing evil age.
Your question seems to presume the point I keep trying to make of your view: “if you don’t participate with the sorts of assumptions I have, then your only option seems to be inactivity.” Just because I don’t over-realize the function of something like politics doesn’t mean retreat. It would only mean that if one presumes an unwarranted hope or over-realization of statecraft in the first place.
To restate once again, I am not putting hope in the things of this world. I am not over-realizing the function of politics. I am realizing that politics serve a purpose in a fallen world and that people disagree as to what purpose. I believe the Bible is an authoritative source of truth that can be and should be used to answer our questions in this life. I am not trying to transform the world by the sword. I am simply acknowledging that the Bible should inform our thoughts, all of them.
ReplyDeleteIf a Christian is a member of Congress and he must vote on a law, I believe his decision should be informed by biblical principles. I do not think that he should seek to pass laws that will reclaim Christ's supposedly lost crown, or to pass laws that will make heaven on earth.
I may be over generalizing some of what you have said, but you continue to try and place me into the category of transformationist, even though I do not fit it. The reason you do so is because you have developed an inadequate reaction against transformationists and the only way to react to my objections is to throw me into that camp and thus tear down a straw man.
I imagine people are growing tired of the discussion that this point, so I likely won't respond to anything else here, but rather at the new post.
ReplyDeleteJosh,
ReplyDeleteHere is roughly the lost post.
What I meant by "as" was: Are the laws of logic disputed, not agreed upon, just as the laws of nature are disputed and not agreed upon?
the Bible never gives us the laws of logic. The only way to gain the laws of logic are through reason, fallen reason.
Clark disagrees.
Logic -- reasoning by good and necessary consequence -- is not a secular principle not found in Scripture and added to the Scriptural axiom; it is contained in the axiom itself. The first verse of John’s Gospel may be translated, “In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God.” Every word of the Bible, from Bereshith in Genesis 1 to Amen in Revelation 22, exemplifies the law of contradiction. “In the beginning” means in the beginning, not a hundred years or even one second after the beginning. “Amen” expresses agreement, not dissent. The laws of logic are embedded in every word of Scripture.
An Introduction to Gordon H. Clark
On this basis-that is, on the basis that Scripture is the mind of God-the relation to logic can easily be made clear. As might be expected, if God has spoken, he has spoken logically. The Scripture therefore should and does exhibit logical organization. For example, Romans 4:2 is an enthymematic hypothetical destructive syllogism. Romans 5:13 is a hypothetical constructive syllogism. 1 Corinthians 15:15-18 is a sorites. Obviously, examples of standard logical forms such as these could be listed at great length.
There is, of course, much in Scripture that is not syllogistic. The historical sections are largely narrative; yet every declarative sentence is a logical unit. These sentences are truths; as such they are objects of knowledge. Each of them has, or perhaps we should say, each of them is a predicate attached to a subject. Only so can they convey meaning.
God and Logic
In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, John wrote, “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.” The Greek word Logos is usually translated Word, but it is better translated Wisdom or Logic. Our English word logic comes from this Greek word logos. John was calling Christ the Wisdom or Logic of God. In verse nine, referring again to Christ, he says that Christ is “The true light” who lights every man. Christ, the Logic of God, lights every man. Strictly speaking, there is no “mere human logic” as contrasted with a divine logic, as some would have us believe. The Logic of God lights every man; human logic is the image of God. God and man think the same way-not exactly the same thoughts, since man is sinful and God is holy, but both God and man think that two plus two is four and that A cannot be not-A. Both God and Christians think that only the substitutionary death of Christ can merit a sinner’s entrance into Heaven. The laws of logic are the way God thinks. He makes no mistakes, draws no unwarranted conclusions, constructs no invalid arguments. We do, and that is one of the reasons why we are commanded by the Apostle Paul to bring all our thoughts into captivity to Christ. We ought to think as Christ does-logically.
Why Study Logic?
Greetings,
ReplyDeleteI went to seminary with Josh. In the past I have worn (or been ascribed, depending on the blogger) labels such as theonomic, postmil, and Kuyperian. I guess that would make me transformational.
I don't like the terms of the debate (metaphorically speaking). It implies several things:
1) that millennial categories such as amil and postmil are legit. I dispute that since no single category can accurately explain all the data.
2) adn that transformation is an implication of the gospel. Bollocks. The gospel is transformation, not just an implication.
Such language means that we should get political. Better stated, the gospel itself is politics. The church established a polis to outnarrate the secular one.
Seems like an interesting discussion. I will read more comments when I have time. If anyone leaves a comment on one of my blogs, please do so on the "Aquinas" one. I don't check the others.
ReplyDeleteKind regards,
Jacob
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteEven if I grant Clark's rendering of John 1:1 (and there are many reason not to), the most it shows is that a thing called logic exists. No where in the Bible does it give us the content of Logic. In other words, the Bible does not have a chapter and verse that defines the law of non-contradiction. We have to arrive at this conclusion by the uses of logic.
It is one thing to say that the "the laws of logic are embedded in every word of Scripture." It is quite another to formulate a definition of the laws of logic. I agree completely that the Bible assumes that humans are logical beings. After all that is the way God created us. But that is different form saying the Bible gives us the laws of logic.
I don't think you are adequately addressing Clark's claims. No, there is not a chapter and verse definition of the laws of logic (neither is there of most biblical doctrines), but the laws of logic can be deduced from Scripture. If we recognize that Scripture is God's thoughts, and we recognize that God thinks logically/correctly, then through "good and necessary consequence" we can determine how we ought to think. You can call that logic, or you can call it something else if you want.
ReplyDeleteThough the laws of logic are revealed to us innately, they can be and should be refined and corrected by the Bible. Though "natural law" is revealed to us innately, it can be and should be refined and corrected by the Bible.
Is it possible for people to think logically without the Bible? Yes.
Is it possible for people to know the moral law without the Bible? Yes.
Do people always think logically, as God does? No.
Do people always know the moral law in its fullness? No.
Is the Bible always logical? Yes.
Is the Bible clear in its expression of the moral law? Yes.
Should people use the Bible to reform the way they think? Yes.
Should people use the Bible to clarify the moral law? Yes.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "the laws of logic can be deduced from Scripture."
Can you please explain to me how we can deduce something without the laws of logic?
Brandon,
ReplyDelete“Is it possible for people to think logically without the Bible? Yes.
Is it possible for people to know the moral law without the Bible? Yes.
Do people always think logically, as God does? No.
Do people always know the moral law in its fullness? No.
Is the Bible always logical? Yes.
Is the Bible clear in its expression of the moral law? Yes.
Should people use the Bible to reform the way they think? Yes.
Should people use the Bible to clarify the moral law? Yes.”
I realize this may be to go in more circles, but as long as logic is on the table again, I don’t understand the the logic here. How do we reform the way we think if our minds themselves are unreliable? Again, I think what is lurking here is a low view of creation. Our minds are just as created as any other created part of us, yet nobody seems tp emplore us to walk, see, taste, hear or experience like God. We are trained to recoil at phrases like, “Let your conscience be your guide,” but nobody recoils at something like, “Let your feet do your walking, your eyes do your seeing, your mind do your thinking and your emotions do your feeling.” Nothing in our created being gets us to heaven (we can’t walk into heaven any more than we can morally earn our way there), but does that really mean we can’t use our minds and consciences as-is?
Zrim
Josh,
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear, the issue is the justification of knowledge, or how we can know the laws of logic we have developed are true. We can know they are true/correct if we see them in Scripture.
We can learn first from Scripture that deductions are valid, then build on that. John 8:47 is an example of deduction, there are countless more. So is 1 Corinthians 15:12-19. This article on apologetics discusses the use of logic in these verses.
The Apologetics of Jesus and Paul
The end of that article quotes the following men:
Wycliffe: All law, all philosophy, all logic, and all ethics are in Holy Scripture. In Holy Scripture is all truth. Every Christian ought to study this book, because it is the whole truth.
Luther: If a person were imprisoned in a house in the dead of night, when it is pitch dark, it would be necessary to kindle a light to enable him to see until the break of day. In this way the Gospel truly shines in the dead of night and in darkness; for all human reason is mere error and blindness, and the world itself is nothing but a realm of darkness. Now in this darkness God has kindled the light, namely, the Gospel, to enable us to see and walk as long as we are on Earth, until the dawn comes and the day breaks forth.
Thus this text (Psalm 119:105) is also strongly opposed to all human doctrines; for since the Word of God is the light in a dark and gloomy place, it follows that all else is darkness. For if there were another light, apart from the Word, St. Peter would not have spoken as he did. Therefore, do not consider how intelligent the men are who teach a different doctrine and how impressively they present their case. If you cannot trace it to God’s Word, then do not doubt that it is mere darkness, and do not let it disturb you at all that they say they have the Holy Spirit. How can they have God’s spirit if they do not have his Word? Therefore they do nothing else but call darkness light and make the light darkness, as Isaiah says.
Scripture . . . alone is the fount of all wisdom. . . . Scripture alone must remain the judge and the master of all books. . . . Whoever does not consult Scripture will know nothing whatever. . . . Nothing except the divine words are to be the first principles for Christians; all human words are conclusions drawn from them and must be brought back to them and approved by them.
While I am all for bashing secular 2kingdomite theories (since the original formulations by Gelasius and others were used to justify an overt theocracy, but let's not talk about that), I do not like Clarkian formulations.
ReplyDeleteCan the statement "the laws of logic are deduced from Scripture" be deduced from Scripture?
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteYes.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteThe so called quote (it maybe but you gave no reference to look it up) Wycliffe is on the face of it wrong. The Bible does not have all truth. That is not the say that the Bible is not truth. Everything the Bible says is right and truthful. However, I could give a list a mile long of things that are true that the Bible knows nothing of: I exist, you exist, I have a blog called Bring the Books..., cell phones work, and so on.
The Luther quotes are out of context, thus I am not sure what the context is in which he said them. I could agree on one level with the statements, namely, in the religious. But I would not agree what we need the Bible to see everything. Look at cultures that have never heard the Gospel or the Bible, they still have truth in them, i.e. do not kill.
Finally, I would love to see who you prove your "yes" answer to Jacob.
Josh,
ReplyDeleteThe objections you raised are what the library of the Trinity Foundation answers. It is the central issue regarding Scripturalism. I cannot adequately address them here. If you want to press the point, start another post and give me some time. If you honestly think you have shut Gordon Clark's mouth that easily, if you honestly think Clark never thought about it, spend some time reading his answers to refutations made by men much brighter than yourself.
The answer to Jacob's question is long and it involves everything that has been addressed up to this point. I feel I have addressed that question in the last few posts I made. If you find those statements inadequate, please interact with them and tell me why.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteThis is some what of a punt. Clark may be justified in holding his view (i.e. have a good reason for holding his views), but you cannot claim to have knowledge (justified, true, believe) of something without your own justification. You may have justification, but you have not expressed it here.
For the record, I was Clarkian, albeit for two weeks. I saw massive holes in his thought. Some of which I have pointed out here. I wrote, I believe, 3 papers against Clark's view in my undergrad, for a professor who studied under Dr. Clark (who did not hold to Clark's view). I have read all his major works on the topic of epistemology and listened to numerous mp3s from him. I say all that, not to brag, but to show that I am well acquainted with his views and his justification for his views.
Josh,
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge that I must personally understand the issues, I am simply taking a modest approach and withholding final judgment on Clark until I have had time to read and understand everything he wrote. He makes a lot of sense to me at this point though. If I see massive and obvious holes in such a great thinker's system, my response is that I'm not understanding it properly... which is usually the case. To say that you understood and then refuted Clark in two weeks sounds quite arrogant.
My response wasn't simply a way of getting out of a corner, I was just acknowledging that you are begging the question. Your objection is the central issue that Scripturalism seeks to refute.
Just curious, who was your teacher?
The Luther quotes are out of context, thus I am not sure what the context is in which he said them. I could agree on one level with the statements, namely, in the religious.
ReplyDeleteWhere is the distinction made between religious and non-religious?
Do you find this distinction in Scripture?
What prevents someone from knowing religious truth outside of the Bible if they can know other truth?
Does Proverbs 1:7 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" refer only to religious knowledge?
Wycliffe's quote can be found in Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church
ReplyDeleteJohn Wycliffe
To give the briefest outline of the Truth of Scripture will be to state in advance the positions of the Protestant Reformers in regard to the Bible as the rule of faith and morals. To Wyclif the Scriptures are the authority for every Christian tenet. They are the Law of Christ, the Law of God, the Word of God, the Book of Life. They are the immaculate law of the Lord, most true, most complete and most wholesome.603 All things necessary to belief for salvation are found in them. They are the Catholic faith, the Christian faith, the primal rule of human perfection, the primal foundation of the Christian proclamation.
This book is the whole truth which every Christian should study.604 It is the measure and standard of all logic. Logic, as in Oxford, changes very frequently, yea, every twenty years, but the Scriptures are yea, yea and nay, nay. They never change. They stand to eternity.605 All logic, all law, all philosophy and all ethic are in them. As for the philosophy of the pagan world, whatever it offers that is in accord with the Scriptures is true. The religious philosophy which the Christian learns from Aristotle he learns because it was taught by the authors of Scripture.606 The Greek thinker made mistakes, as when he asserted that creation is eternal. In several places Wyclif confesses that he himself had at one time been led astray by logic and the desire to win fame, but was thankful to God that he had been converted to the full acceptance of the Scriptures as they are and to find in them all logic.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteMy comment about being Clarkian for two weeks was hyperbola ( I was exaggerating to make a point). If I think back correctly and Adam Parker can correct me, we both were Clarkian for about a semester in undergrad. Before I became Clarkian I was a Classical Apologist in the line of Norman Giesler. I studied Clark for a semester and them held to his view for another semester and then moved to Van Til's view. So, I think I studied the issue in-depth for about a year before I moved on from Clark's view. I have read and interacted in writing with: Religion, Reason and Revelation, Philosophy of Science and Belief in God, A Christian View of Men and Things, An Introduction to Introduction to Christian Philosophy, Logic, and God and Evil: The Problem Solved, plus I have listened to countless mp3s. I am saying all this to , at least, avoid the charge of being arrogant and ignorant of Clark's views. To answer your question, the teacher I sat under that took classes with Gordan Clark was David Rieter. Now on to some substance.
If you have been reading the posts by Jason Stellman you will know why the distinction is made between the secular and the sacred. If you have not read them, I would refer you to those few posts. I am not interested in rehashing all of his fine work.
I agree completely with Schaff's (I think that is who you are quoting) take on Wycliffe. Wycliffe's understanding is spot on. If you notice, he thinks that the pagans can get things right. That means they can arrive at truth without the Bible.
I gave a list of a few thing that I believe exist and are true that the Bible says nothing about. Would you please comment on them. Do you think you exist? If so, how did you come to this knowledge? This is, I believe, the achilles heel of Clark's epistemology.
If you notice, he thinks that the pagans can get things right. That means they can arrive at truth without the Bible.
ReplyDeleteYou are missing the point. Wycliffe says the only way we can know when they are right is when they agree with the Bible.
I am not denying that fallen man can stumble upon truth without the Bible. I am saying, how can we know when he has stumbled upon truth and when he has not? How do we discern the two? I say we do not lean on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5-6).
Again, I have not studied enough of Clark to answer your question, but I don't think that means my objections are not valid.
I would venture to say something along the lines of:
Romans 8:12-17 describes a condition of men who exist. They believe they are children of God because the Spirit tells them. Those who believe they are children of God exist. I believe I am a child of God because the Spirit has told me this through the Word. Therefore I exist.
This is just shooting from the hip again though, so don't bother looking too closely.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "don't bother looking too closely." So, am I suppose to point out holes is your syllogisms or not?
You can if you want, I think it would be further steering us away from the discussion we are having in regards to natural law.
ReplyDeleteYou will find holes because its the first time I wrote it out, but I would be curious. I think its necessary to note that Clark points out problems with Rationalism and Empiricism with regards to the question of existence as well. If we are going to go down this trail then I will have to try to remember where he addresses the issue and we should address those problems as well.
Brandon,
ReplyDeleteHow does the Spirit tell you through the Bible you have faith? How can the Spirit tell you something if it is the you you are trying to prove exists.
Clark talks about those subjects in Introduction to Christian Philosophy.